NationStates Jolt Archive

Meh, I don't think it's poetic, I think it is tragically uncreative. It's a pet peeve of mine. The old "think with your heart, not with your head" thing is so tired, and it insults both the human brain and the human heart. Your heart has better things to do, to be perfectly frank, and your brain is probably not getting nearly as much credit as it deserves.

Except, she never said anything about "think" at all. Why don't you try reading her words minus your personal prejudices and you'll probably notice the difference between what you say was said and what was actually said. Not to mention that she wasn't actually talking about the heart at all but what people assume the heart represents. It was appropriate, clear and absolutely accomplished the task at hand in a metaphorical way. I can understand how that must irk you.

EDIT: Careful, don't say picture because Bottle will say you're talking about photography when you've never mentioned it. When you tell her you are talking about drawing. She will continue to talk about photography. Because what do you know about what you mean. You can only mean what she read, cuz she says so. ANd be careful not to mock her. Only she is allowed to mock. Or else she'll act like mocking her is an overreaction.

Meh, I don't think it's poetic, I think it is tragically uncreative. It's a pet peeve of mine. The old "think with your heart, not with your head" thing is so tired, and it insults both the human brain and the human heart. Your heart has better things to do, to be perfectly frank, and your brain is probably not getting nearly as much credit as it deserves.
"Creative" is precisely what it is; that is the power of the mind. The poet's venue is the faculty of imagination, and one of his tools is metaphor.

I suppose you're right, it is a form of "thinking with the heart," though that saying you quote is not about faith so much as an appeal to compassion.

The heart has better things to do that be compassionate?

The world which we see is simply our minds turned inside out -- MacDonald
Thanks for making me look that up. The article was a delight to read.

It's a poetic way of describing the point. That there is a difference between knowledge and faith and I think Willamena described it well. Also, she never said, thinking, she said, knowing, which is quite different.
It's the difference between truth and truthiness.

Knowing with your heart is the same as wanting really bad to know with your head, but not being able to and not worrying about it.

It's the difference between truth and truthiness.

...and you owe Colbert royalties. :D

From everything I've read from you, what are you are really talking about is investigating the natural world while holding such an assumption. The assumption is not a "base" for the investigation, but exists despite it. Inspiration aside, the science is still the science.

Well, OK, one can see it that way. And in fact, I would go even further to say that one can do science without needing to relate it to any basis at all. However, one is not free from the need for a basis when e.g. trying to account for the presence of intelligent life using science. That is the difference that I am trying to get at. It's the explanations that need an assumption for a starting point, while the actual experiments can be done without such assumptions.


Originally Posted by Bruarong
The idea of God is not religion, in my books. There are plenty of irreligious people who believe in the existence of god.

Ok. Now I recognize the problem. You don't understand English.

Here. I'll help.

Religious -
adj.
1. Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
2. Of, concerned with, or teaching religion: a religious text.
3. Extremely scrupulous or conscientious: religious devotion to duty.

Seriously. Religious is a basic term and accepting the existence of God definitely qualifies as a religious belief. It doesn't mean you ascribe to a particular religion, but it is religious.

The point is that you are trying to say that whenever I mention God, I am bringing religion into science. My point is that while acknowledgment of god may be an important part of religion, it isn't religion, and thus I do not feel that when I accept that God may have created bacteria as bacteria, I am not trying to bring God into my science, but rather acknowledging what I think is true. My science has nothing more to do with religion other than that initial acknowledgment. And if it is true, ignoring it won't help my science. Incidentally, if it is false, it won't damage my science either, since I understand the limitations of science.
Why don't you try to be a little more polite in your posts? Call yourself a Christian?


Plenty of people belive in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, unicorns, elves, and leprechauns, too. And not out of a sense of religion.

That doesn't mean that any of those things exist.

Let's make this a little more clear, shall we?

Assumptions that you make at the beginning of any scientific or logical endeavor are called "postulates".

Postulates are unproven ideas that we build out from. While the ideas that we later build and prove are proven, the original postulates remain unproven, no matter what else we prove.

Thus, to discuss Euclidean geometry (which has only limited application in reality) we start with a few postulates.

You want to start with the postulate that God exists - however, no matter what you prove along the way later, you'll never prove that God exists - your postulate will always remain a postulate.

Never, ever, a proven fact.


I think your point is that when you begin with an assumption, e.g, existence of God, you will never be able to prove it. I'm not sure I agree with that in every case. But what I do agree with is that science is not in a position to prove God's existence, and rest assured, I have never said that or believed it in any of my posts....just to clear that one up.


You seriously don't get it, do you? The conclusions of science are not claimed to absolute. They can't be. They aren't. They are the best conclusion we can think of based on the evidence, when that conclusion is limited to that which can be tested. That's it. Science is very limited and everyone knows it and admits it. So take your strawman home. Science says nothing about the existence of God and NEVER will. There is no naturalistic thinking in science at all, by your definition. Because none of science denies the existence of God.

I challenge you to find one scientific theory that denies the existence of God. One. Otherwise, I dismiss your ridiculous claims with the amount of evidence you used to make them. NONE.

Since you accept that the conclusions of science are not absolute, then you are not disagreeing with me? Why, then are you bothering to post replies to my posts? My beef is not with people in your position, but with those who think that the idea that 'intelligent life occurring through natural forces is fact, while anyone who differs is lost in myth'. I have no problem with most of science, only that which pretends to be able to prove that life and the world was not created, or with those who specifically have a problem with science done by anyone who accepts that God may have created the world.

There certainly is a lot of naturalistic thinking in science. Your saying that there isn't is absolutely ridiculous, and makes me wonder just how much science literature you have read. Science itself does not deny the existence of God, and never have I claimed this, but the naturalistic thinking within much of science denies that God had anything to do with the universe.


Better yet, ask him to come up with a scientific theory that has passed scientific standards of peer review and proof, i.e., repeated experiments, that proves that God exists.

Any research paper published in any major scientific journal will do - Nature, Journal of Mathematical Physics - you know.

You are simply not understanding my points, either unintentionally or deliberately, I don't know. Never have I said that science is capable of proving God. Your taunt? about me trying to provide evidence for this is showing that you simply have not caught on to what I have been saying. Perhaps I'm just not being clear enough. But I have repeated myself too many times already.

Here is the deal I just had this discussion in Biology. Science can't prove anything. It just disproves things. Do you have a better theory than Evolution...disprove evolution. There you go...that is how science works. Don't believe in God?? Guess what idiots won't listen...why because God doesn't do tests.

Here is the deal I just had this discussion in Biology. Science can't prove anything. It just disproves things. Do you have a better theory than Evolution...disprove evolution. There you go...that is how science works. Don't believe in God?? Guess what idiots won't listen...why because God doesn't do tests.

The idea that science can't prove anything is a controversial one, and it isn't entirely as simple as that. If I have a theory that a gene is the cause of resistance to a particular antibiotic and that this gene is found in a particular bacterium, I then set about destroying that gene through mutation. When I see antibiotic sensitivity, have I not demonstrated that my theory is correct? If I then take that the intact gene and place it in another organism that is sensitive to that particular antibiotic, and see resistance as a result, have I not demonstrated that my theory is true? Every time I repeat the experiment and see the same result, am I not proving that my theory is correct, at least beyond reasonable doubt? Wouldn't I have just used science to prove that my theory was true?

Science can disprove things, and it does find out a good deal of stuff about our world through the null hypothesis, etc., but one ought to be careful about what science can and can't do. For example, if there is an assumption within evolutionary theory that cannot be tested, for example, the assumption that homology equals common ancestry, and the natural conclusion that humans evolved from apes, then this assumption cannot be proven wrong through science. In this way, much of the explanations one hears in evolutionary theory simply cannot be proven wrong. It is on equal footing with belief in the smurfs or fairys or God when it cannot be proven wrong.

No; that is not what MacDonald is saying*, just the opposite. You will never see reality, not with human eyes. You will always ever only see what you, the poet, see (the mind turned inside out). The world symbolizes our mind.

I'm not sure how that differs from what I was saying.



You can't look at the world and objectively conclude that there is god, even if you believe in him; not just by looking. Oh, you can recognize him in the symbols of the world, but that's a different thing. Recognition is something we do, with the mind. Turn it inside out, and you have recognition of god as a reflection of self.


I reckon one can conclude that there is a god by looking at the world, but not objectively, since objective thinking about god is probably impossible. Because such a conclusion depends on which belief is already held, it will never be free from subjective thinking. Thus one can make all the conclusions he likes, but they will never be objective ones.

Thus, for a person who believes in God, when his world is turned inside out, his world will have room for God's existence. Thus, if God does not exist, his god will be one of his own making. If God does exist, his god will either be a god of his own making or some perception of the God that does exist.

The idea that science can't prove anything is a controversial one

Really ? Who are the ones debating and what are their positions ?

*snip*
Every time I repeat the experiment and see the same result, am I not proving that my theory is correct, at least beyond reasonable doubt? Wouldn't I have just used science to prove that my theory was true?

Nope. You have just shown it is extremely likely that it is true. Likely enough for people to use your results as if they are certain facts - but that still does not mean they are.

Science can disprove things
I should hope so - since that is its purpose.

For example, if there is an assumption within evolutionary theory that cannot be tested, for example, the assumption that homology equals common ancestry, and the natural conclusion that humans evolved from apes, then this assumption cannot be proven wrong through science.

Nitpick: the theory of evolution does not claim humans evolved from apes. Christians trying to mock evolution claim it does - but that is of course the same as me saying Jesus was a jerk because the Bible said he ate babies: a silly lie.

You are however right in principle. Something which cannot be tested and has no testable implications either cannot be subjected to the scientific method and therefor falls outside the realm of science.

In this way, much of the explanations one hears in evolutionary theory simply cannot be proven wrong. It is on equal footing with belief in the smurfs or fairys or God when it cannot be proven wrong.

Wrong. The difference is that those hypotheses have implications.

A 'truth' that will never be challenged or changed, no matter what the evidence suggests. Meanwhile, Creationism, as a general rule, has nothing to do with revelation, and everything to do with a literal interpretation of a few select portions of Genesis.

A truth that cannot be challenged by evidence from science, I think you mean. And if science sticks to science, there is no need to challenge this 'truth'.

You can hold your opinion on Creationism, of course, but you are not convincing me that you know much about Creationism if you think it is based entirely on a particular way of reading certain parts of Scripture, which of course is not restricted to Genesis.



No one is talking about your imaginary philosophy here. If science actually assumed the types of things you love to say it does, it would cease to be science.


We were originally talking about 'evolutionism', which is not science but a way of thinking that depends on several assumptions to provide explanations for e.g. intelligent life. This particular way of thinking is influenced by naturalism, something that Darwin preached.


Every so-called Creation-scientist has done this, repeatedly. Their arguments are all based upon completely flawed (often, it seems, intentionally so) descriptions of evolutionary theory, geology, astronomy, etc. And all of them ignore or discount any and all evidence that doesn't fall into a neat little, "My particular interpretation of my particular translation of the Bible is absolutely and completely literally correct, except in the parts that I have decided are not."


Since you are claiming this, would you care to demonstrate it? Otherwise, you sound like you are ranting.



Of course science can't disprove Creationism. Of course, science can't disprove the idea that the world was made 5 minutes ago with all of our memories intact to suggest that we'd been around longer.


Then perhaps you can agree that science cannot prove that we evolved from apes or monkeys. Then why do you accept it?


That isn't foregone at all. If evidence that contradicted it were found, it would be disproven, and therefore discarded.


But because everyone knows that science cannot disprove that life came from a single or a few ancestors, it is accepted as fact. And this is logical? But they say that the moment a 'different' life form is discovered, the 'fact' will be 'reviewed'. What rubbish!


Really? You found a Creationist paper that actually discounted a literal interpretation of the Bible -the conclusion that every single so-called "Creation scientist" starts with? Do tell!

Answers in Genesis once published a list of 'changes' in their explanations. So have several pro-Creation websites. You ought to have a bit more of a look around.



I have yet to meet a Creationist who even bothered to truly understand or investigate any idea other than, "My particular interpretation of my particular Bible is right. Period."

You are arguing with one for starters. You know, I'm beginning to feel that your world is a little isolated when you make comments like that.

Well, OK, one can see it that way. And in fact, I would go even further to say that one can do science without needing to relate it to any basis at all. However, one is not free from the need for a basis when e.g. trying to account for the presence of intelligent life using science. That is the difference that I am trying to get at. It's the explanations that need an assumption for a starting point, while the actual experiments can be done without such assumptions.
So, you are saying that man cannot do anything without a reason, presumably even if he is not consciously aware of the reason. I'll buy that. Thing is, that's the starting point of human initiative, not the starting point of the science. It's the same for anything man does, from observing the stars to washing the dishes. The science of evolution, or even of abiogensis, begins with the formation of a plan* (hypothesis).

*Recalling Blackadder's "I have a cunning plan!"

Then perhaps you can agree that science cannot prove that we evolved from apes or monkeys. Then why do you accept it?

He probably doesn't, since science has disproven that theory :P

Since you accept that the conclusions of science are not absolute, then you are not disagreeing with me? Why, then are you bothering to post replies to my posts? My beef is not with people in your position, but with those who think that the idea that 'intelligent life occurring through natural forces is fact, while anyone who differs is lost in myth'. I have no problem with most of science, only that which pretends to be able to prove that life and the world was not created, or with those who specifically have a problem with science done by anyone who accepts that God may have created the world.
Facts are absolute. However, scientific facts are up for being replaced with more detailed facts that can alter the very understanding and nature of the theory they support. Take gravity, for instance. It was once "falling down", but now we think of it as "falling towards the centre of the largest mass". Both ways of falling are facts, they are absolute statements upon which their respective theories are based, and they both retain truth.

Really ? Who are the ones debating and what are their positions ?

My point is that the definition of 'proof' is controversial. It can mean 'beyond reasonable doubt', or it can mean 'absolute certainty'.



Nope. You have just shown it is extremely likely that it is true. Likely enough for people to use your results as if they are certain facts - but that still does not mean they are.


But science is not interested (or able?) in establishing absolute certainty, only a workable one. It is this same level of proof that works in a court of law, upon which some people get locked away for life, and other get let out free.



Nitpick: the theory of evolution does not claim humans evolved from apes. Christians trying to mock evolution claim it does - but that is of course the same as me saying Jesus was a jerk because the Bible said he ate babies: a silly lie.


I understand the theory of evolution is that all existing life forms are derived from other life forms through the processes of mutation and natural selection. While that doesn't exactly say that humans evolved from 'lesser' animals (insert apes or monkeys or whatever you jolly will like, it makes no real difference), this it what it means. And that is completely different from your example about Jesus, because meaning of the Bible is that He is God, not a jerk.



You are however right in principle. Something which cannot be tested and has no testable implications either cannot be subjected to the scientific method and therefor falls outside the realm of science.


We are only discussing principles here, not doing the science.


Wrong. The difference is that those hypotheses have implications.

How does that make it wrong? I thought all hypotheses have implications.


So, you are saying that man cannot do anything without a reason, presumably even if he is not consciously aware of the reason. I'll buy that. Thing is, that's the starting point of human initiative, not the starting point of the science. It's the same for anything man does, from observing the stars to washing the dishes. The science of evolution, or even of abiogensis, begins with the formation of a plan* (hypothesis).

That is not really what I said, although I would probably agree with it. It is rather interesting what other people read in one's posts.


Facts are absolute. However, scientific facts are up for being replaced with more detailed facts that can alter the very understanding and nature of the theory they support. Take gravity, for instance. It was once "falling down", but now we think of it as "falling towards the centre of the largest mass". Both ways of falling are facts, they are absolute statements upon which their respective theories are based, and they both retain truth.


My current (limited) understanding is that even the 'fact' of gravity depends on assumptions, and as such cannot be considered a stand-alone absolute fact. When we attempt science, we assume that our universe is ordered enough for us to make methodical observations and logical conclusions and predictions. We cannot prove absolutely that the universe contains such order. We simply assume it, and so far, we have never been disappointed (even to the point that we can't say if randomness really does exist). Thus much of the observations made by science depend on that assumption. This is why, as I understand it, there is a difference between facts and 'facts', or scientific facts (to use your words). So long as we require an assumption as a basis for the knowledge, we can never say that it is an absolute fact. Thus people are right to say that science cannot prove things as absolute facts, but only to a workable understanding, e.g. gravity.

However, one has to appreciate a world of difference between the 'scientific fact' of gravity, and that of evolution (macro-evolution).

My point is that the definition of 'proof' is controversial. It can mean 'beyond reasonable doubt', or it can mean 'absolute certainty'.

Which is why scientists prefer the term "evidence".

I understand the theory of evolution is that all existing life forms are derived from other life forms through the processes of mutation and natural selection. While that doesn't exactly say that humans evolved from 'lesser' animals (insert apes or monkeys or whatever you jolly will like, it makes no real difference), this it what it means.

Not necessarily. We can also be a throwback from something we would consider superior now, but which at the time was inferior. And yes, this means that if somewhere in the future being able to reason is a less important survival trait than pure raw strength, humanity will probably evolve into something strong and stupid. Evolution is not always in a direction *we* would consider upwards - it is in a direction that works best at the time.

Evolution claims that humans and apes have a common ancestor. According to the theory apes are not our daddies, but our cousins.

And that is completely different from your example about Jesus, because meaning of the Bible is that He is God, not a jerk.

The *intent* of the statements is exactly the same though: to undermine your opponents credibility by painting a false or out-of-context picture of the others position.

How does that make it wrong? I thought all hypotheses have implications.
Implications that either fit with other theories or don't. Evolution is not a single island; it is part of a larger puzzle.
Example: if evolution requires the earth to be billions of years old the theory would be invalidated if one could show it was created last tuesday. Not through an attack on the principles of the theory, but on its implications.
Fortunately for its supporters the scientists in the disciplines of astronomy, physics and geology seem to find this age quite likely.

Religion otoh does not need to concern itself with those things. God just willed it so after all.

I'm not sure how that differs from what I was saying.
Well, you claimed 'reality' (''…you may or may not see reality''). I pointed out that it's not 'reality', it's simply 'reality enough' to satisfy us for the moment. MacDonald acknowledges this.

It is a misconception that science is free from assumptions. You can't look at the world and conclude that there is no God, unless you already have an underlying world view that has omitted him. In that case, rather than proving God's existence unreal, it will mean that you simply cannot see any evidence for Him. Like MacDonald said, the world that you see is simply what you have already got in your head.
You can't look at the world and objectively conclude that there is god, even if you believe in him; not just by looking. Oh, you can recognize him in the symbols of the world, but that's a different thing. Recognition is something we do, with the mind. Turn it inside out, and you have recognition of god as a reflection of self.
I reckon one can conclude that there is a god by looking at the world, but not objectively, since objective thinking about god is probably impossible. Because such a conclusion depends on which belief is already held, it will never be free from subjective thinking. Thus one can make all the conclusions he likes, but they will never be objective ones.
While I agree with your start, I disagree with the last bit. One can make objective conclusions; those are conclusions from a perspective other than our own, usually a 'universal' one. The trouble with claiming objective conclusions about God from observing nature is that the universal viewpoint provides multiple explanations, of which the natural ones are most appealing to science*, and therefore more appropriate to declare as a scientific explanation. The 'I am actually seeing God' conclusion is not universal; it is recognition of 'God in nature' when 'nature' is sufficient to explain nature.

The subjective viewpoint provides meaning that is significant to the individual; and it need be only significant to one individual, the one applying the meaning. So if one looks at the world and 'sees' God in the patterns, patterns that it is assumed are formed by unthinking, uncaring, mindless Nature (an assumption both religion and science can make), patterns that are not evident to everyone, then the logical conclusion is that the observation they made is meaningful only to them.

*Note, not 'scientists', but 'science'.

Thus, for a person who believes in God, when his world is turned inside out, his world will have room for God's existence. Thus, if God does not exist, his god will be one of his own making. If God does exist, his god will either be a god of his own making or some perception of the God that does exist.
Well, now I agree with most of this except the first bit. That goes way beyond what MadDonald was talking about. You are right, creating a subjective reality is not something a human being can avoid; we are individuals. We each have our take, our individual understandings of the world, from our individual perspectives, and accept that as a limitation. A necessary one, because without it not only would we not be who we are, but there would be no religion and no image of God.

We are all 'poets of creation', and we each have our own image of God, whether god exists or not. That image is what we interact with, what we tell stories of in books like the Bible, the words that we express 'god' in; it symbolizes god. The same is true of reality; we interact with 'reality enough, for us', not 'reality'.

It is not ''the world turned inside out'' but the world as ''the human being turned inside out'' --which is the distinction I draw between 'the world' and 'the universe'. The world is what we individually and as a group can know of the universe. It is the subjective perspective, and that (as the point that MacDonald was making) is what allows things in Nature to become the ''garments that man clothes his thoughts in''. We symbolize the inner world in metaphor, with a language of the outer world. The argument earlier with Bottle about ''heart'' is a good example.

Then perhaps you can agree that science cannot prove that we evolved from apes or monkeys. Then why do you accept it?
The only ones I have ever heard accept that are Creationists.

Science does not claim that we evolved from apes or monkeys.

The point is that you are trying to say that whenever I mention God, I am bringing religion into science. My point is that while acknowledgment of god may be an important part of religion, it isn't religion, and thus I do not feel that when I accept that God may have created bacteria as bacteria, I am not trying to bring God into my science, but rather acknowledging what I think is true. My science has nothing more to do with religion other than that initial acknowledgment. And if it is true, ignoring it won't help my science. Incidentally, if it is false, it won't damage my science either, since I understand the limitations of science.
Why don't you try to be a little more polite in your posts? Call yourself a Christian?

Funny. You question whether I'm a Christian because I challenge you. I didn't realize I needed to check my brain at the door. You're playing word games. You want for science to accept the existence of God but claim that religion is outside of its realm. I got news for you, Bob, God is a religious concept no matter how much you pretend it's not. A lot of what people post in threads is opinion, but this isn't one of them. Here, you are plainly wrong by definition, as I showed.

Whether it is true or false (I hold that it's true), science has no business holding it as either. There is no emperical evidence for the existence of God and it is non-falsifiable. As you've pointed out several times, such things have no business in the realm of science. Once you allow science to acknowledge God, you go down the path of opening that door to anything else that is not verifiable. You, personally, can accept the existence of God and I recommend that you do, but that has nothing to do with your role in science.

I think your point is that when you begin with an assumption, e.g, existence of God, you will never be able to prove it. I'm not sure I agree with that in every case. But what I do agree with is that science is not in a position to prove God's existence, and rest assured, I have never said that or believed it in any of my posts....just to clear that one up.

More inconsistency. "I'm not sure that I agree with that in every case" with 'that' being proving the existence of God. Then, you claim that science is not in a position to prove it. If you hold that science can prove God or evidence God, then it can also do the opposite. I don't think you want to go there, do you?

Since you accept that the conclusions of science are not absolute, then you are not disagreeing with me? Why, then are you bothering to post replies to my posts? My beef is not with people in your position, but with those who think that the idea that 'intelligent life occurring through natural forces is fact, while anyone who differs is lost in myth'. I have no problem with most of science, only that which pretends to be able to prove that life and the world was not created, or with those who specifically have a problem with science done by anyone who accepts that God may have created the world.

I'm absolutely disagreeing with you. Much of what you are posting is patently false. Evolutionary theory is absolutely falsifiable and it is tested daily. Your assessment of this is factually wrong. We did not evolve from apes and to say we did shows a profound ignorance of evolutionary theory. Your assessment of this is factually wrong. The belief in God is relgious. Your assessment of this is factually wrong. Evolutionary theory does not include the origin of life. Your assessment of this is factually wrong. We disagree on a lot and the facts are on my side.

By the way, if God created the universe, then natural forces are the hand of God. You can hold both views. However, if you hold that scientific explorations cannot be explained in terms of natural forces then you are quite simply not performing science.

Absolute is referring to absolute truth. That means that if we stepped outside of the universe and were granted all knowledge there would be a truth. This is a truth we do not have access to as scientists and that lack of access is excepted. We accept that science is a relative truth based on the ability to observe the universe. It is limited in that way. You are asking it to exceed that limitation and enter the realm of absolute truth. The realm of religion. Religion explores absolute truth (although it does not have access to it either, it does not have to accept that limitation because of the ability to rely on faith and not emperical evidence).

There certainly is a lot of naturalistic thinking in science. Your saying that there isn't is absolutely ridiculous, and makes me wonder just how much science literature you have read. Science itself does not deny the existence of God, and never have I claimed this, but the naturalistic thinking within much of science denies that God had anything to do with the universe.

Good, then proof should be easy to find. Post some. Keep in mind that ignoring God is not the same as denying God. The guy in the office next door may have had a role in the project I'm writing up, but as I'm documenting it in a certain way his role does not fall under what I'm documenting. Nothing that I'm writing, however, suggests that Joe didn't have an effect on the project, possibly even a profound effect, and it certainly doesn't deny the existence of Joe. It simply ignores him as any effect he had does not fall into the realm of what I'm being asked to document.

Now, I'll wait for you to provide some proof.

Oh, and, why don't you try to be a little more polite in your posts? Call yourself a Christian? My points are founded and proven. You've offered no proof at all.

You are simply not understanding my points, either unintentionally or deliberately, I don't know. Never have I said that science is capable of proving God. Your taunt? about me trying to provide evidence for this is showing that you simply have not caught on to what I have been saying. Perhaps I'm just not being clear enough. But I have repeated myself too many times already.

You're being perfectly clear and perfectly contradictory. You claim that science can't prove (or disprove) God, but you want science to accept His existence. Then you admit that religious views are outside of science, but you want science to accept His existence. Then you admit that science should not accept anything that it cannot validate and test, but you want science to accept His existence. Accepting the existence of God is evidence that you don't actually believe what you're saying. You're understanding of evolutionary theory is evidence that you don't actually work in biology or even understand it very well, evolutionary theory being the basis of modern biology and all. You keep acting like there is something wrong in our understanding, but the problem is that you aren't being even remotely consistent.

Let's be clear. GOD HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE. HE CANNOT BE DENIED. HE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THAT IS NOT THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN OUR WORLD.

That is not really what I said, although I would probably agree with it. It is rather interesting what other people read in one's posts.
I thought I understood what you meant by 'basis'. My bad.

My current (limited) understanding is that even the 'fact' of gravity depends on assumptions, and as such cannot be considered a stand-alone absolute fact.
A fact is a statement of truth. 'Facts' represent reality as best we can, with our limited understanding, and using language as the best tool we have to express things. There are no absolutes in a true sense. When I say, "objects fall down in a gravity field", it is a statement that truely represents 'reality' as well as can be expressed by man. That's all it need be.

When we attempt science, we assume that our universe is ordered enough for us to make methodical observations and logical conclusions and predictions. We cannot prove absolutely that the universe contains such order. We simply assume it, and so far, we have never been disappointed (even to the point that we can't say if randomness really does exist). Thus much of the observations made by science depend on that assumption. This is why, as I understand it, there is a difference between facts and 'facts', or scientific facts (to use your words). So long as we require an assumption as a basis for the knowledge, we can never say that it is an absolute fact. Thus people are right to say that science cannot prove things as absolute facts, but only to a workable understanding, e.g. gravity.
Right; certain assumptions must be accepted as fact in order to move forward and build on them. Theories and facts in the context of science are of that sort. Evolution *is* a fact in as far as it is accepted and being built upon. It doesn't have to represent 'reality', just 'reality enough'.

Every fact, though, is only an appoximation of reality. Every single one. I think you are confusing what a 'fact' is with the thing it represents. It is an expression of words which convey an understanding of truth, in this case of something accepted as absolute. The assumption you talk about is present in all facts; indeed, in everything we communicate.

There is no 'reality', there is only 'reality enough'.

However, one has to appreciate a world of difference between the 'scientific fact' of gravity, and that of evolution (macro-evolution).
Macro-evolution is simply a compilation of evolutionary changes.

But science is not interested (or able?) in establishing absolute certainty, only a workable one. It is this same level of proof that works in a court of law, upon which some people get locked away for life, and other get let out free.

We cannot prove absolutely that the universe contains such order. We simply assume it, and so far, we have never been disappointed (even to the point that we can't say if randomness really does exist).

Amusingly you mention that science has no interest in absolutely certainty and then mention the fact that its foundation doesn't have absolute certainty as if it's a flaw. Interesting dichotomy.

That assumption is the basis of the discipline and it is a necessary assumption. Kind of like the unprovable assumption that time is linear and that I can make plans for tomorrow not knowing if I'm actually going backward in time and tomorrow, quite literally, will never come. We make assumptions every day. They are necessary and acceptable.

Science is a discipline with rules. It starts with basic rules. The universe can be explained (otherwise, what's the point). The explanation that is most useful in terms of science is one that is based on emperical evidence and direct and indirect observation. The best explanation is the simplest. The explanation has to be testable and falsifiable.

Science set the rules for science, just as math does, philosophy, religion. They are all disciplines with their own accept rules. You want to muddy these rules because you don't like them. Forgive me, if I don't think it's your place or your right.

The subjective viewpoint provides meaning that is significant to the individual; and it need be only significant to one individual, the one applying the meaning. So if one looks at the world and 'sees' God in the patterns, patterns that it is assumed are formed by unthinking, uncaring, mindless Nature (an assumption both religion and science can make), patterns that are not evident to everyone, then the logical conclusion is that the observation they made is meaningful only to them.

*Note, not 'scientists', but 'science'.

Science CANNOT make the assumption that the patterns evidence an unthinking, uncaring, mindless nature or God. It CANNOT. That's a why does things happen question and not a how do things happen question. You suggesting that science answers purpose and it doesn't. It doesn't answer why nature contains gravity but only how gravity occurs.

Then perhaps you can agree that science cannot prove that we evolved from apes or monkeys. Then why do you accept it?

You are arguing with one for starters. You know, I'm beginning to feel that your world is a little isolated when you make comments like that.

Let's see. You claim to have explored evolutionary theory which is what she accused Creationists of not doing. Hmmmm... then why don't you, oh, I don't know, know even the basics of evolutionary theory, like we didn't evolve from apes and it doesn't include abiogenesis. If you're going to claim to be the first Creationist Dem ever met that actually educated themselves on the theory, you should probably actually do it.

Science CANNOT make the assumption that the patterns evidence an unthinking, uncaring, mindless nature or God. It CANNOT. That's a why does things happen question and not a how do things happen question. You suggesting that science answers purpose and it doesn't. It doesn't answer why nature contains gravity but only how gravity occurs.
I never said that the patterns evidence that. I said that the meaning found in the patterns evidences a subjective conclusion.

I never said that the patterns evidence that. I said that the meaning found in the patterns evidences a subjective conclusion.

I'm just making the point that you said that science can make that assumption and it cannot. Yes, the conclusions of science are technically subjective because they are limited by their own rules, but science is not subjective in that way (in other words it doesn't relate meaning at all in those kinds of terms).

Creationism may not be science, but evolution is not either. Liberals pushed for it so they could drive Christinaity out of schools. Evolutoin is a bunch of crack-pot scientist, who hate the idea that there is someone greater then them, observing false data and lying trough their teeth to try and disprove to the common man that there is a God, so that he mya put himself up on his little box and have the pople worship his "knowledge"

Creationism may not be science, but evolution is not either. Liberals pushed for it so they could drive Christinaity out of schools. Evolutoin is a bunch of crack-pot scientist, who hate the idea that there is someone greater then them, observing false data and lying trough their teeth to try and disprove to the common man that there is a God, so that he mya put himself up on his little box and have the pople worship his "knowledge"

Damn that Constitution for not allowing the Christians to indoctrinate our children!

You also are rather ignorant considering the fact Darwin was extreamly religous when he wrote his two tomes. Never mind the fact that many scientists are religious. They just have the ability to seperate Science from Religion and understand Evolution is not an attack on Religion.

So how do you prove or disprove God?

Sit down.

What Do You Mean!!! Evolution Is A Blatant Assault On Chrisitianity! The Only Way It Works Is If You Consider Evolution A Tool By Which God Created Man!

Creationism may not be science, but evolution is not either. Liberals pushed for it so they could drive Christinaity out of schools. Evolutoin is a bunch of crack-pot scientist, who hate the idea that there is someone greater then them, observing false data and lying trough their teeth to try and disprove to the common man that there is a God, so that he mya put himself up on his little box and have the pople worship his "knowledge"

And your evidence for these bold claims is... ? Do note that if you can actually provide complete and conclusive proof evolution is bullshit you will get in the history books.

Of course, then you would still be facing the tremendous task of showing that your theory to explain the diversity of life is better than those 15 million others. Merely disproving evolution does not make *you* right.

What Do You Mean!!! Evolution Is A Blatant Assault On Chrisitianity! The Only Way It Works Is If You Consider Evolution A Tool By Which God Created Man!

The question of God let alone his involvement in things can't be proved or disproved. It is not a factor of consideration for Evolution.

You want to change it? Then come up with a test to prove God.....

Creationism may not be science, but evolution is not either. Liberals pushed for it so they could drive Christinaity out of schools. Evolutoin is a bunch of crack-pot scientist, who hate the idea that there is someone greater then them, observing false data and lying trough their teeth to try and disprove to the common man that there is a God, so that he mya put himself up on his little box and have the pople worship his "knowledge"
1) You seem to know nothing about evolution or the US constitution.

2) I've read up on evolution and creationism. Evolution has quite alot of evidence in it's favor. Creationism has none.

3) Evolution doesn't say whether or not a god exists. It only shows how life evolved into the many forms we see today.

...and you owe Colbert royalties. :D
Nope, it's going in the dictionary. He got snaked by the people at Websters. Free beer, baby.

What Do You Mean!!! Evolution Is A Blatant Assault On Chrisitianity! The Only Way It Works Is If You Consider Evolution A Tool By Which God Created Man!
The lies deliberately spread by creationists are the true attack on Christianity.

The Catholic church considers evolution the tool by which god created man.

A truth that cannot be challenged by evidence from science, I think you mean.
Here's the mission of the Creationists if they chose to accept it. They need to come up with a better model for the electroweak force, and quantum electrodynamics at least. And these can't be tweeked to just make the argon argon dating fit the creationsit timeline, and describe the universe as 6000 years old. No, they've got to make changes to the models, that do that, explain everything we see as well as the current theories, and hopefully introduce insights that allow for better smoke detectors, PET scans, microchips, lasers, televisions, microscopes, digital cameras and microwaves. If they can't do that, they can't do anything. There's little point in them attacking evolution out of religious fervor as the bulk of their creation myth has be revealed as false by six orders of magnitude.

The point is that you are trying to say that whenever I mention God, I am bringing religion into science. My point is that while acknowledgment of god may be an important part of religion, it isn't religion, and thus I do not feel that when I accept that God may have created bacteria as bacteria, I am not trying to bring God into my science, but rather acknowledging what I think is true.

The minute you try to say, "It is a valid scientific theory that God made bacteria as bacteria," or try to base your scientific theory in this assumption, you have brought God (and thus religion) into science.

If you say it as a person, rather than as a scientist - that is fine. But a scientist cannot acknowledge a belief in the existence or non-existence of God in their capacity as a scientist any more than a dentist should tell you that your gums are unhealthy because God wills it, even if that is what a dentist believes.

I think your point is that when you begin with an assumption, e.g, existence of God, you will never be able to prove it. I'm not sure I agree with that in every case.

It is a generally accepted mathematical and logical principle. If you are using logic, you cannot prove or disprove your base assumptions. They are assumed at the beginning of your logical discourse.

There certainly is a lot of naturalistic thinking in science. Your saying that there isn't is absolutely ridiculous, and makes me wonder just how much science literature you have read. Science itself does not deny the existence of God, and never have I claimed this, but the naturalistic thinking within much of science denies that God had anything to do with the universe.

Show me a scientific paper that says, "God had nothing to do with this." Otherwise, you're full of it. You are simply angry that the generally accepted theories do not include your personal idea of God. Sorry, too bad.

You are simply not understanding my points, either unintentionally or deliberately, I don't know. Never have I said that science is capable of proving God. Your taunt? about me trying to provide evidence for this is showing that you simply have not caught on to what I have been saying. Perhaps I'm just not being clear enough. But I have repeated myself too many times already.

It is you who do not understand what you are saying. If you allow for a theory to be based in, and to rely upon, the assumption that God exists (or does not exist), then you have brought God into science. This can only be done if the idea of God existing (or not existing) is falsifiable. It is not. But, by trying to include it, you put it on that level.

The idea that science can't prove anything is a controversial one,

Only because you insist on using a different definition of "prove" than anyone else and ignore the methods of science.

For example, if there is an assumption within evolutionary theory that cannot be tested, for example, the assumption that homology equals common ancestry,

Once again, you demonstrate ignorance. This is a conclusion, not an assumption, of evolutionary theory. Since said conclusion has never been disproven, it is used as an assumption in further research. But it was not originally assumed as part of developing the theory.

I'm just making the point that you said that science can make that assumption and it cannot. Yes, the conclusions of science are technically subjective because they are limited by their own rules, but science is not subjective in that way (in other words it doesn't relate meaning at all in those kinds of terms).
Right. Science cannot make that conclusion, because it is inherently objective.

A truth that cannot be challenged by evidence from science, I think you mean.

No, that isn't what I mean at all. It is a "truth" that can be challenged by physical evidence, but which those who hold to it will not challenge. So-called "Creation scientists" begin with the absolute assumption that whatever parts of Genesis they choose to accept as literal truth are, well, literal truth. Nothing, no matter how clear the evidence may seem, can challenge this. For most, this means that a world-wide flood absolutely did happen, that the world is no more than 6000 years old, that Adam and Eve were the first human beings and did live 900 or so years, and so on. None of these ideas will ever be challenged by the Creationist, even though they are clearly hypotheses about the natural world, and thus within the realm of science.

You can hold your opinion on Creationism, of course, but you are not convincing me that you know much about Creationism if you think it is based entirely on a particular way of reading certain parts of Scripture, which of course is not restricted to Genesis.

Unless you are using "Creationism" to mean "creation", then that is exactly what Creationism is. It is based in a literal interpretation of certain parts of Genesis. If you are simply referring to "the idea that some God created the universe in some way," then you aren't referring to "Creationism" in the same way that so-called "Creation scientists" do.

We were originally talking about 'evolutionism',

...which is a made up "philosophy" that is only known to the people who oppose it.

Since you are claiming this, would you care to demonstrate it? Otherwise, you sound like you are ranting.

You want me to link to all "Creation science" lecturesn and essays? If you wish to disprove it, show me one that does not first make the assumption that God created things in a specific way.

Then perhaps you can agree that science cannot prove that we evolved from apes or monkeys. Then why do you accept it?

Science has never suggested any such thing. Now, it has suggested that we evolved from a common ancestor shared with apes and monkeys. Science certainly cannot prove this, just as it cannot prove anything. But it has provided evidence for that conclusion, and thus far, has discovered no evidence to the contrary. Thus, I accept it for the same reason that I accept that F=ma, at least in the macroscale.

But because everyone knows that science cannot disprove that life came from a single or a few ancestors, it is accepted as fact.

Wrong. It is accepted as a viable theory. To the layperson, this might translate to acceptance as fact. But to the scientific community, it will always remain theory.

Answers in Genesis once published a list of 'changes' in their explanations. So have several pro-Creation websites. You ought to have a bit more of a look around.

They changed Genesis? Do tell. What parts did they change? Were the creatures made in different orders? Did the flood actually not happen?

You are arguing with one for starters. You know, I'm beginning to feel that your world is a little isolated when you make comments like that.

No, I am arguing with someone who believes in creation, which is not the same as a "Creation scientist," whose sole purpose is to try and "prove" a specific literal creation story. If you are a "Creation scientist", which creation story do you take as literally true? What evidence have you found to empirically back it up?

Meanwhile, the complete ignorance of evolutionary theory that you constantly demosntrate is plenty enough evidence to suggest that you have yet to actually bother learning about other ideas. You started out with the assumption that whatever version of creation you believe in is true, and you have yet to challenge that assumption. All you do is look for "holes" in a theory you obviously haven't bothered to truly understand.

What Do You Mean!!! Evolution Is A Blatant Assault On Chrisitianity! The Only Way It Works Is If You Consider Evolution A Tool By Which God Created Man!

And what is the problem with that? How is it an attack on Christianity if there is a way to reconcile them?

Creationism may not be science, but evolution is not either. Liberals pushed for it so they could drive Christinaity out of schools. Evolutoin is a bunch of crack-pot scientist, who hate the idea that there is someone greater then them, observing false data and lying trough their teeth to try and disprove to the common man that there is a God, so that he mya put himself up on his little box and have the pople worship his "knowledge"

Bwahaha. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this. Ad hominems do not a case make. Now, if you'd like to show some evidence of your ridiculous claims, we'll be happy to show you why they're ridiculous claims.

Also, how do you explain the conservatives who believe in evolution? How do you explain the Christians who believe in evolution, like myself? Are we just looking to falsify the God we worship? Can you show a single example of any theory that addresses God in any way, especially a negative way?

3) Evolution doesn't say whether or not a god exists. It only shows how life evolved into the many forms we see today.

Actually, I'd go further. For all we know, life started yesterday and the world popped up with all of has memories of events that happened a week ago when nothing existed and fossils and whatnot throughout the world leading us to a false conclusion. But since there is no evidence for that and there is nothing useful in treating the world as if that's what happened we go with what evidence we do have. Evolution is a theory based on the available evidence. The only "truth" it claims is one based on the observable evidence. Most people would agree that if there is a God (and I hold that there is), that God is quite capable of creating all this evidence that makes evolutionary theory logical.

The point is that evolution cannot negate or confirm God because of the nature of science. However, science set as one of it's limitations that all of it's theories are only based on how things appear. That's why science is constantly changing its theories as we gather more evidence and our ability observe increases. No one is claiming that evolution is absolute truth, contrary to the ridiculous claims of Creationists. What is being claimed is that evolution is the most logical scientific theory based on the currently available evidence.

What Do You Mean!!! Evolution Is A Blatant Assault On Chrisitianity! The Only Way It Works Is If You Consider Evolution A Tool By Which God Created Man!

Amusing. You call it an assault on Christianity and then you show how it's not. By the way, exclamation points do not make your argument more convincing.

What Do You Mean!!! Evolution Is A Blatant Assault On Chrisitianity! The Only Way It Works Is If You Consider Evolution A Tool By Which God Created Man!
Show EXACTLY WHERE the bible actually prohibits that. Others have alluded to my point as well ... and also the fact that you don't seem to know much at all about the viewpoint you think you're opposed to.
And isn't there another poster who *caps* every first letter .... are you a puppet?

And isn't there another poster who *caps* every first letter .... are you a puppet?
There's a possibility that both are.

Evilution was made up by athiest sinetists working for satan. Satan berried the dinosore bones and his demons posesed the sientists to make them find the bones and make up the theory of evilution. That way satan wood be able to make peopl think that their just animals so we will have dirty sex like un married monkeys. Evilution makes peopl gay and makes hitler hate the Jews.

They really dont have any proof. Thats why its a theory. Creation is based on the bible tho. That means its the word of God so it must be true.

Who can deny the logic of Jesussaves?

Who can deny the logic of Jesussaves?

I'm certainly convinced! I'm expelling my demons right now and becoming a Young Earth Creationist Flat-Earther Geocentrist. By the way, I have realized that sickness is caused by demons, not microbes, so don't bother with those evil demon medicines!

=)

Geocentrist, if you're going for the gold.

LOL! I thought about that right before I clicked in to see your post. If no one had noticed it, I would've changed it. Damn you for noticing! hehe

The minute you try to say, "It is a valid scientific theory that God made bacteria as bacteria," or try to base your scientific theory in this assumption, you have brought God (and thus religion) into science.

There is a difference between God and religion, wouldn't you agree? Even in spite of the huge numbers of definitions of those two terms.



If you say it as a person, rather than as a scientist - that is fine. But a scientist cannot acknowledge a belief in the existence or non-existence of God in their capacity as a scientist any more than a dentist should tell you that your gums are unhealthy because God wills it, even if that is what a dentist believes.


I guess I don't buy into that whole division of thought. I much prefer calling a spade a spade. If I believe that God created humans, I am hardly going to donate money and time to those people who are looking for evidence of the development of humans from something pre-human. One should not divorce his beliefs from his practice. If we apply that to the science community, we should not be surprised that each scientist has his motivation for doing science. Whether is be a ''God'' issue or not, the reason will always be there.

The second way of looking at it is asking the question, 'Does it work?' In other words, can a scientist who approaches science on the basis that God created the world discover anything that is of practical value to the modern world, or is he hampered and basically unable to perform satisfactory science because of his assumption? I would answer it with a definite 'No, he is not automatically hampered or limited or at a disadvantage to any other scientist.'' You and I obviously disagree.

You like to point to history where the church has hampered progress in science. But surely you can see that the problems there were caused by mixing church and government. It wasn't the scientist's belief in God that caused the problem. It was the church's fear of losing control over the people that was the problem. In fact, many people who made major contributions to science held a position similar to mine. It was never a question of whether God existed or whether he created the world. Pasteur, for example, a Catholic scientist, made a major contribution to science. He would have never questioned whether God created the world, but performed his science in 'the world that God created'. I wish to approach my science in the same way. I am not searching for evidence of God, I am investigating God's creation.


It is a generally accepted mathematical and logical principle. If you are using logic, you cannot prove or disprove your base assumptions. They are assumed at the beginning of your logical discourse.


I wouldn't disagree with you. However, I was thinking of a situation where someone begins with the assumption that the world is e.g. round rather than flat, and sets out to prove that assumption by travelling in one direction around the world until he reaches the exact same spot where he started from. In one sense, he has used the assumption to prove his assumption is correct.


Show me a scientific paper that says, "God had nothing to do with this." Otherwise, you're full of it. You are simply angry that the generally accepted theories do not include your personal idea of God. Sorry, too bad.


So you think that everything in science is written in the papers? Perhaps you ought to read between the lines. And, anyway, it isn't the scientific papers that say such things, but newspaper editorials, magazine articles, TV shows, etc., where 'distinguished' people say things like 'In former times, we used to think God did such and such, but nowadays we know that bla bla bla bla, and thusGodisawholepileofcrap.' Most scientific papers avoid the issue of God because otherwise they would never get published. But that does not mean that there is not an issue with God. It is simply avoided.

You misunderstand me. I am not angry. And I have no problem with people holding their favourite ideas. I do like to challenge them when I get the chance. You simply don't have to agree with me, and I am not trying to change the science world. No need to be sorry there.


It is you who do not understand what you are saying. If you allow for a theory to be based in, and to rely upon, the assumption that God exists (or does not exist), then you have brought God into science. This can only be done if the idea of God existing (or not existing) is falsifiable. It is not. But, by trying to include it, you put it on that level.


And I am also arguing that if one was to remove everthing from science that was not falsifyable, one would not have any science left. What gives you the right to remove an assumption about God, while hanging on to other assumptions?


Only because you insist on using a different definition of "prove" than anyone else and ignore the methods of science.


That is a bit harsh, isn't it? What is the point of trading insults?


Once again, you demonstrate ignorance. This is a conclusion, not an assumption, of evolutionary theory. Since said conclusion has never been disproven, it is used as an assumption in further research. But it was not originally assumed as part of developing the theory.

So you agree that it is still an assumption, and then call me ignorant for calling it an assumption. Nice one.

Which is why scientists prefer the term "evidence".

I would say that evidence is less than 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. One would need more than mere evidence to put man on Mars.



Not necessarily. We can also be a throwback from something we would consider superior now, but which at the time was inferior. And yes, this means that if somewhere in the future being able to reason is a less important survival trait than pure raw strength, humanity will probably evolve into something strong and stupid. Evolution is not always in a direction *we* would consider upwards - it is in a direction that works best at the time.

Evolution claims that humans and apes have a common ancestor. According to the theory apes are not our daddies, but our cousins.


I don't deny that evolutionary theory may allow some curious pathways of development. But given that the first life form was thought to be rather simple, then the presence of humans today will mean that the overall direction was simple to complex, i.e. upwards.

Nit pick, really. Perhaps I do not always describe evolution the way that you want to hear it. But I will try to keep your preferences in mind.


The *intent* of the statements is exactly the same though: to undermine your opponents credibility by painting a false or out-of-context picture of the others position.


Perhaps you could point out exactly where I have been painting a false picture of evolution. I have posted that the meaning of evolution is that humans evolved from monkeys. Now, whether I say that evolution means that humans evolved from monkeys, or that humans evolved from the ancestor of both humans and monkeys, to my way of thinking, doesn't really paint a false picture of evolution. The point is that it means that we evolved from less intelligent animals. Whether they were monkeys or something like a monkey is important for classifying skeletons, but not for a debate like this one, for heaven's sake.



Implications that either fit with other theories or don't. Evolution is not a single island; it is part of a larger puzzle.
Example: if evolution requires the earth to be billions of years old the theory would be invalidated if one could show it was created last tuesday. Not through an attack on the principles of the theory, but on its implications.
Fortunately for its supporters the scientists in the disciplines of astronomy, physics and geology seem to find this age quite likely.

Although I have read about plenty of people in all those disciplines who question the phenominal ages. It seems to me that most disciplines get their long ages from the biologists, who in turn get it from their idea of what evolution (both chemical and biological) requires in order to have intelligent life from a big bang. But that is only an impression. I cannot defend it with facts.
At any rate, the idea of long ages is certainly something that cannot be proven, only a deduction based on assumptions.


Religion otoh does not need to concern itself with those things. God just willed it so after all.

Your idea of religion must be different from mine, then. For me, my religion cannot ignore facts. If it is fact that the world is billions of years old, then my religion will have to take that into account, whether it is comfortable for me or not. If it is a deduction based on assumptions, then my religion will take that into account also, and recognise that it may or may not be true. It isn't necessary for religion to hide from the facts, or try to alter them. Religion can actually be honest and aware of the 'outside world'.

No, that isn't what I mean at all. It is a "truth" that can be challenged by physical evidence, but which those who hold to it will not challenge. So-called "Creation scientists" begin with the absolute assumption that whatever parts of Genesis they choose to accept as literal truth are, well, literal truth. Nothing, no matter how clear the evidence may seem, can challenge this. For most, this means that a world-wide flood absolutely did happen, that the world is no more than 6000 years old, that Adam and Eve were the first human beings and did live 900 or so years, and so on. None of these ideas will ever be challenged by the Creationist, even though they are clearly hypotheses about the natural world, and thus within the realm of science.

OK, so you define your idea of creation scientists. Fair enough. I am certainly not one of those. I am a creationist, but I do not go about trying to prove creation with my science. In fact, I don't know anyone who does that, nor have I ever read about any experiment attempting to do this. While I accept the Biblical version of creation, I am also aware that this is subject to interpretation.



Unless you are using "Creationism" to mean "creation", then that is exactly what Creationism is. It is based in a literal interpretation of certain parts of Genesis. If you are simply referring to "the idea that some God created the universe in some way," then you aren't referring to "Creationism" in the same way that so-called "Creation scientists" do.


I don't know if science can ever demonstrate whether the world was created in six days or not, but I do think that it is possible that God created the world in six days. Why not? I think a powerful God could do this. A world wide flood is also possible if it was a result of an intervention (i.e. a miracle). I suppose science could uncover evidence which agreed with or disagreed with it, but that is a long way from proof. In short, I will allow a literal interpretation of Genesis, and rule it out if science finds a way of proving to me (beyond reasonable doubt) that it did not happen.

One has to remember that while science is limited (rightly so), so are the messages that are passed from God to man. The messages have limitations because, for example, those who passed them on to us were not scientists, and not eye-witnesses. While they are absolutely reliable when it comes to truth, they are far from detailed.


...which is a made up "philosophy" that is only known to the people who oppose it.


Then the thing (whatever you call it) that opposes the idea of the existence of a God who has interfered with the material world. If God cannot interfere with the material world, then He is absolutely powerless to save us if we need help. Thus he cannot save his people from their sins. He would simply be no more than an idea. I see evolution as being used by some people of this ilk who want to remove God completely, or put Him into a safe box. Thus, evolution itself poses no threat to Christianity or any other world view. The battle is over the minds of people whether God exists or not, and evolution often gets used as a tool to this end. Thus a real enemy of Christianity is the thing (whatever you call it) that some people refer to as 'evolutionism'.


You want me to link to all "Creation science" lecturesn and essays? If you wish to disprove it, show me one that does not first make the assumption that God created things in a specific way.


Relax, I would never ask you to do something that I could not be bothered to do myself.
There is nothing wrong with arguing that God made things in a specific way, and then looking at the world to see if it contradicts or agrees with your assumption. 'Evolutionism' does the same.


Science has never suggested any such thing. Now, it has suggested that we evolved from a common ancestor shared with apes and monkeys. Science certainly cannot prove this, just as it cannot prove anything. But it has provided evidence for that conclusion, and thus far, has discovered no evidence to the contrary. Thus, I accept it for the same reason that I accept that F=ma, at least in the macroscale.


That's another way of saying that you have personally found the evidence and the explanations convincing that declare that we evolved from some pre-human creature. I personally do not find them convincing. That we are both Christians says something about the personal freedom allowed within the faith.

However, the point is that you have accepted conclusions based on assumptions. Because I do not hold to those assumptions, I accept a different set of conclusions (because I have a different assumption). The question is why do you accept your assumptions?



Wrong. It is accepted as a viable theory. To the layperson, this might translate to acceptance as fact. But to the scientific community, it will always remain theory.


Right, but the moment you remind people that it is only a theory, you are likely to find someone who emphatically says that it is a 'true theory'. I suppose it is the politically correct part of evolution.


They changed Genesis? Do tell. What parts did they change? Were the creatures made in different orders? Did the flood actually not happen?


Rather than changing the text, they have changed their ideas about what the descriptions in the text might mean. They have also changed their arguments and their theories about how the text and data from science can agree with each other. It's called the evolution of a theory.


No, I am arguing with someone who believes in creation, which is not the same as a "Creation scientist," whose sole purpose is to try and "prove" a specific literal creation story. If you are a "Creation scientist", which creation story do you take as literally true? What evidence have you found to empirically back it up?


I would say that you got yourself out of that corner by redefining your terms. Well done. I now have to agree with you. I am not one of those Creation scientists that you were ranting about.



Meanwhile, the complete ignorance of evolutionary theory that you constantly demosntrate is plenty enough evidence to suggest that you have yet to actually bother learning about other ideas. You started out with the assumption that whatever version of creation you believe in is true, and you have yet to challenge that assumption. All you do is look for "holes" in a theory you obviously haven't bothered to truly understand.


(Sigh) You know, if you and I were friends, and we had the time to talk over a coffee, I reckon I would have a go at trying to convince you that I knew more about evolutionary theory than you do. But that would only be an issue of pride, perhaps. Anyway, part of the reason I bother with debating is to learn ideas, not to win a stupid argument.

There is nothing wrong in looking for holes, since they are a good indication that something is wrong, and that a better explanation is needed.

Of course I do question my assumptions quite frequently, just not on NS.

OK, so you define your idea of creation scientists. Fair enough. I am certainly not one of those. I am a creationist, but I do not go about trying to prove creation with my science. In fact, I don't know anyone who does that, nor have I ever read about any experiment attempting to do this. While I accept the Biblical version of creation, I am also aware that this is subject to interpretation.Alright. Contemplate for a bit then, what sort of physical consequences litteral creation would have.

Would our planet, for example, appear to be millions of years old?
Would it come with an extensive fossil record?
If the flood happened when the Bible says it did, wouldn't it leave behind some sort of evidence, like normal floods do?

The reason the ToE & various other theories exist, is because they accurately account for observed reality, and are able to accurately predict various things.

There's nothing sacred about it. If you can think of a better way to explain observed phenomena & predict how things work, you should do it. Hell, you'd not only be bloody famous, you'd more than likely get filthy rich.

In short, I will allow a literal interpretation of Genesis, and rule it out if science finds a way of proving to me (beyond reasonable doubt) that it did not happen.It's somewhat comparable to seeing a guy get beat up with a bat. Now you can both hear his body breaking & his screams of pain, but you refuse to believe it hurts to be beat with a bat, because you have yet to feel it on your own body.

You're just being dodgy - which is fine, as long as you're honest about it. There's no way anyone can ever prove to you that Genesis didn't take place quite like the Bible says it did, when you refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
I wonder, would a time machine be sufficient?

Oh well...

Alright. Contemplate for a bit then, what sort of physical consequences litteral creation would have.

Would our planet, for example, appear to be millions of years old?
Would it come with an extensive fossil record?
If the flood happened when the Bible says it did, wouldn't it leave behind some sort of evidence, like normal floods do?

The reason the ToE & various other theories exist, is because they accurately account for observed reality, and are able to accurately predict various things.


I don't think the world looks millions of years old.
I know that there is a lot of speculation based on this. I have had a look at some radioactive dating systems, and my conclusion is that they only work if the world is millions of years old. If it isn't, most of them simply do not work. Do you see the fix? They only work if the assumption is true.

The extensive fossil record isn't so extensive as some people make out. Nothing like finding the missing links, unless you think that an animal somewhat like a platypus is a missing link (it really isn't). The fossil record gives us a thing called the Cambrian explosion, which evolution cannot explain. And having fossils fits very nicely with the idea that fossils need to be buried very quickly and placed under a good deal of pressure (before decay sets in). The flood fits nicely with that.

The flood has left behind evidence. There isn't a place that I know of in all the world where scientist can say that there was no flood.

What part of modern scientific progress e.g. medicine, rockets, computers, etc., would you ascribe to evolution?


There's nothing sacred about it. If you can think of a better way to explain observed phenomena & predict how things work, you should do it. Hell, you'd not only be bloody famous, you'd more than likely get filthy rich.

It's somewhat comparable to seeing a guy get beat up with a bat. Now you can both hear his body breaking & his screams of pain, but you refuse to believe it hurts to be beat with a bat, because you have yet to feel it on your own body.


I am looking at the details, and I am certainly not convinced by all that the evolutionary story has to offer. Some of it is down right weak. Other parts are simply holes. For me, it's about recognising the obvious, not ignoring it.



You're just being dodgy - which is fine, as long as you're honest about it. There's no way anyone can ever prove to you that Genesis didn't take place quite like the Bible says it did, when you refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
I wonder, would a time machine be sufficient?

Oh well...

Yes, a time machine would do it. But would you be ready for the facts if they didn't turn out your way?

I do not ignore the 'mountains of evidence', I assure you. I do not have all the answers, but that doesn't mean that I ignore the evidence. I am willing to discuss any point you like, so long as we both know enough about it to hold an intelligent conversation.

I do not ignore the 'mountains of evidence', I assure you. I do not have all the answers, but that doesn't mean that I ignore the evidence. I am willing to discuss any point you like, so long as we both know enough about it to hold an intelligent conversation.

Emphasis mine and a good reason why you should quite while you're behind. You don't know the difference between the theory of evolution and the conclusions that people have drawn from the theory. You clearly ignore physical and chemical evidence that supports current dating methods. You clearly ignore the medical benefits derived from evolutionary theory and its decendents, so much so that you ask if there is any. You clearly don't know the difference between abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. You've several times suggested we descended from apes according to evolutionary theory, a common Creationist LIE.

In the end, you pretend to want to discuss this, but you're just regurgitating the same old Creationist mumbo-jumbo, some of which you clearly don't understand and haven't actually questioned. The real question is are you willing to actually explore evolutionary theory to the point where you won't make these mistakes and you can hold an intelligent conversation about it without the need to constantly be corrected on what the theory actually espouses.

Emphasis mine and a good reason why you should quite while you're behind. You don't know the difference between the theory of evolution and the conclusions that people have drawn from the theory. You clearly ignore physical and chemical evidence that supports current dating methods. You clearly ignore the medical benefits derived from evolutionary theory and its decendents, so much so that you ask if there is any. You clearly don't know the difference between abiogenesis and the theory of evolution. You've several times suggested we descended from apes according to evolutionary theory, a common Creationist LIE.

In the end, you pretend to want to discuss this, but you're just regurgitating the same old Creationist mumbo-jumbo, some of which you clearly don't understand and haven't actually questioned. The real question is are you willing to actually explore evolutionary theory to the point where you won't make these mistakes and you can hold an intelligent conversation about it without the need to constantly be corrected on what the theory actually espouses.

Thanks for responding. I read his "arguments" and thought the same thing. He is as bad as my 4 year old. However, she is 4. ;)

Emphasis mine <Snip>
Bugger! I was gonna say that :p

By the way, long time no see Jocabia. I trust all's well?

I don't think the world looks millions of years old.No? How old does it look then?
Personally I can't really gauge it, but it does look a bit worn this time of year.

I have had a look at some radioactive dating systems, and my conclusion is that they only work if the world is millions of years old.Now we're getting somewhere. Or rather; nowhere.
Radioactive decay happens at a steady rate, as far as all observations can tell. That is why examining radioactive decay is a usefull way to determine the age of something.

If our knowledge about radioactive decay is as wrong as you imply, I'm quite deeply disturbed by our dependency on nuclear power. We obviously don't really know how those things work, we've just been lucky enough not to blow ourselves to bits - assuming that is possible, which we obviously don't know either.
I think you should contact Germany though. They're storing a hell of a lot radioactive waste, and if our knowledge of decay rates is as fictional as you believe, there's simply no way of telling just what that shit can do. If you're right, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the lot suddenly started a chain reaction - assuming those can still happen - and polluted half of EUs ground water for the next... Well how long's anyone's guess, right?

Tehee.. How old are you B?

The extensive fossil record isn't so extensive as some people make out.How extensive/in-extensive is it then?

Here's a few possible explanations for the Cambrian:The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.

Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.

The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.

Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).

Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).

Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).

Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992
But it's besides the point really. The real interest I have in your question, is how you manage to point out something we currently cannot fully account for presently.
How does your critical stance on this, relate to your blatant disregard of observations contradicting Creationism?

If 'Evolutionists' were like you, everyone would simply deny there was a Cambrian period, as it's too much bother - like you deny our knowledge of decay rates.

- I could go on, but I gotta get some food.

By the way though, evidence of different water-levels, over a period of millions of years, actually contradicts notions of a global flood.

I'm doing well. I've just limited my time on here of late. I really have quite a lot to do, so I choose my battles a lot more carefully these days. If you want to see me you can usually see me bashing against the wall of one of our more common trolls because I've noticed that most everyone else has given up and I'm not willing to allow them to go unchallenged. I learn less than I used to from the debates on NS, but the posts take less time and they're far more entertaining. ;)

Then the thing (whatever you call it) that opposes the idea of the existence of a God who has interfered with the material world. If God cannot interfere with the material world, then He is absolutely powerless to save us if we need help.
He is, however, not helpless to save us in the immaterial world, the spiritual world, which is his domain.

Thus he cannot save his people from their sins.
Sin exists in the immaterial world as a spiritual concept. It is one of the few things he can save us from.

He would simply be no more than an idea. I see evolution as being used by some people of this ilk who want to remove God completely, or put Him into a safe box. Thus, evolution itself poses no threat to Christianity or any other world view. The battle is over the minds of people whether God exists or not, and evolution often gets used as a tool to this end. Thus a real enemy of Christianity is the thing (whatever you call it) that some people refer to as 'evolutionism'.
And what is wrong with his being "no more than an idea"? It's not like he compares to ideas that you, yourself, generate. MacDonald poses him as a power of imagination, one that, unlike ours, manifests without the intermediation of a physical body. This is raw "creation".

Holding an image of God that is immaterial is in no way eliminating him from the picture.

A little humility, folks, if you please. Just because you are unable to do something doesn't mean everybody else is. I've personally used the scientific method to confirm scientific predictions generated by evolutionary theory. Hell, I was doing that as an undergrad. And I'm not terribly bright.

LOL...I just read this post, and I have to agree Bottle...I love ya, but, you're not that bright... ;)

There is a difference between God and religion, wouldn't you agree? Even in spite of the huge numbers of definitions of those two terms.

No, I wouldn't. If you believe in a God, or anything about that God, that is religion. Those who try to separate the two are the same people who say, "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual." What they really mean is, "I don't want to be associated with some religious people, so I'm going to make up a different word for it."

I guess I don't buy into that whole division of thought. I much prefer calling a spade a spade. If I believe that God created humans, I am hardly going to donate money and time to those people who are looking for evidence of the development of humans from something pre-human. One should not divorce his beliefs from his practice. If we apply that to the science community, we should not be surprised that each scientist has his motivation for doing science. Whether is be a ''God'' issue or not, the reason will always be there.

And this right here is why you can never be a good scientist. A scientist must question everything, even his own beliefs. If you cannot do so - if you cannot accept the idea that you might be wrong in your beliefs and thus look at the evidence with that possibility in mind, you are no scientist.

He would have never questioned whether God created the world, but performed his science in 'the world that God created'. I wish to approach my science in the same way. I am not searching for evidence of God, I am investigating God's creation.

You can investigate God's creation without making assumptions like, "God created it in this specific way." You wish to believe in a special creation of humankind, and therefore limit any investigations you will do by assuming this from the start. I have no problem performing my science in the world that God created. I simply don't assume anything about that creation other than that it happened. I don't limit the ways in which that creation could have been accomplished, as you do.

I wouldn't disagree with you. However, I was thinking of a situation where someone begins with the assumption that the world is e.g. round rather than flat, and sets out to prove that assumption by travelling in one direction around the world until he reaches the exact same spot where he started from. In one sense, he has used the assumption to prove his assumption is correct.

That wouldn't be science. Now, if they started with the hypothesis that the Earth is round and did the same thing, they could state that they had gathered evidence that supported their hypothesis, and had not disproven it.

So you think that everything in science is written in the papers? Perhaps you ought to read between the lines.

I don't have to. You want to bring out a given scientist's personal beliefs by "reading between the lines," but that is not science. I don't need to know a scientist's personal beliefs to determine the validity of their science.

And, anyway, it isn't the scientific papers that say such things, but newspaper editorials, magazine articles, TV shows, etc., where 'distinguished' people say things like 'In former times, we used to think God did such and such, but nowadays we know that bla bla bla bla, and thusGodisawholepileofcrap.'

And for every scientist who tries to claim this, you have probably at least 80 or so theist scientists quietly going about their work. Those who try to claim that science somehow disproves God are in such a small minority as to be irrelevant.

Most scientific papers avoid the issue of God because otherwise they would never get published. But that does not mean that there is not an issue with God. It is simply avoided.

No, most scientific papers leave God out of it because most scientists realize that science has nothing to do with God.

And I am also arguing that if one was to remove everthing from science that was not falsifyable, one would not have any science left.

You can remove everything that is not falsifiable except the base assumptions in which the philosophy was derived - that empirical evidence of the universe can be gathered and that there are actual hard and fast rules for the workings of the universe.

What gives you the right to remove an assumption about God, while hanging on to other assumptions?

The only assumptions used are those in which the scientific method is based. The existence of God is not one of them, as God is, by definition, outside the realm of the method itself.

That is a bit harsh, isn't it? What is the point of trading insults?

No, and it wasn't an insult. It was a fact. The only problem you have with the discussion of "proof" is that you ignore the logic of science and use a different definition of "prove". How is that an insult exactly?

So you agree that it is still an assumption, and then call me ignorant for calling it an assumption. Nice one.

You said it was an assumption of evolutionary theory. It is not. It is a conclusion of evolutionary theory. It is an assumption of further work that accepts evolutionary theory as valid. There is a rather large difference between the two.

OK, so you define your idea of creation scientists.

Those are the people who generally call themselves "Creation scientists."

While I accept the Biblical version of creation,

Out of curiosity, which one?

I don't know if science can ever demonstrate whether the world was created in six days or not,

Logically, it can, unless God tried to hide it by making it look otherwise. Well, strike that. It can either provide evidence to support the idea of disprove it.

but I do think that it is possible that God created the world in six days. Why not? I think a powerful God could do this.

But a powerful God couldn't have set up a process that would result in intelligent human beings?

I suppose science could uncover evidence which agreed with or disagreed with it, but that is a long way from proof.

....which has been our point all along. Now you are switching your definition of "proof." Science cannot prove anything. It can either disprove or provide evidence for a given hypothesis.

One has to remember that while science is limited (rightly so), so are the messages that are passed from God to man. The messages have limitations because, for example, those who passed them on to us were not scientists, and not eye-witnesses. While they are absolutely reliable when it comes to truth, they are far from detailed.

Then why hold so closely to a given interpretation?

Then the thing (whatever you call it) that opposes the idea of the existence of a God who has interfered with the material world.

It's called either atheism or deism, the former being an idea held by some 2-4% of the world population and the latter being held by a few more, although it allows for a creation of the material by God before deciding not to interfere.

Of course, neither atheism nor deism is part of science.

I see evolution as being used by some people of this ilk who want to remove God completely, or put Him into a safe box.

And I see people who use evolution, in their own philosophies, as evidence for the existence of a God, or an intelligent creator of some sort. So?

There is nothing wrong with arguing that God made things in a specific way, and then looking at the world to see if it contradicts or agrees with your assumption.

There is if you are trying to consider yourself a scientist.

However, the point is that you have accepted conclusions based on assumptions. Because I do not hold to those assumptions, I accept a different set of conclusions (because I have a different assumption). The question is why do you accept your assumptions?

If you do not hold to the assumptions that evidence about the workings of the universe can be found through empirical investigation and that there are set rules on which the universe works, what are you doing trying to be a scientist?

Right, but the moment you remind people that it is only a theory, you are likely to find someone who emphatically says that it is a 'true theory'. I suppose it is the politically correct part of evolution.

Yes, a person who is not a scientist.

Rather than changing the text, they have changed their ideas about what the descriptions in the text might mean.

Pretty much always moving from more literal to less literal, I am sure.

I would say that you got yourself out of that corner by redefining your terms.

I have redefined nothing. I have simply used the terms as they are used by those who claim to be "Creation scientists."

There is nothing wrong in looking for holes, since they are a good indication that something is wrong, and that a better explanation is needed.

Of course not. Science thrives on looking for holes. But when your support for theory A is to say, "Theory B isn't exactly right," you have abandoned logic.

Here's a few possible explanations for the Cambrian...
You missed the obvious one: that they came from Mars, fleeing their dying world.

You missed the obvious one: that they came from Mars, fleeing their dying world.Ah yes, the origins of Richard Hoegland :p

There's an awful lot I could argue against, but posts are getting too long for cogent discussion... Would you mind if I cherry-pick something that I haven't seen a response on?

I don't deny that evolutionary theory may allow some curious pathways of development. But given that the first life form was thought to be rather simple, then the presence of humans today will mean that the overall direction was simple to complex, i.e. upwards.

Look at snakes... Presupposing that Eden's 'serpent' was not of course a pre-created bodyplan (by God or the Fallen One), which is the view I expect you to hold, but for the moment consider the place of the snake in the hypothetical world of evolution, etc, etc. They are reptiles (in this 'mythical' universe) descended from reptiles, yet having almost totally lost their limbs (vestigial remains exist within their skeletons, but certainly all obvious outwards signs are gone). Even if you consider their body complexity to have increased w.r.t. their modern locomotion methodology, the complexity of their limbs has been reduced essentially to zero.

Complexity does not necessarily equate to 'better suited to the environment'. Complexity could be superfluous (e.g. eyes in subterrainian fish) or even a problem (load-bearing limbs in purely aquatic mammals, having re-occupied their marine niche and abandoning a shore-side hanbitat, much as seals still do today).

If a creature survives and 'begats' offspring, having lost the use of its legs, eyes, even a complex reasoning brain, then that is the only measure that is important. The future of mankind (maybe in some post-disaster world heralded by comet or supervolcano) might be best accomplished by 'feral' humans, surviving on instinct rather than reason. The requirements of a modern human brain (polyunsaturated fatty acids, births of infants being dangerous to mother and baby alike, the inability to allow the child to survive indepentantly until several years have passed, even reliably walk on their own for a couple) as opposed to a simpler 'instinctive' brain of many other types of creature (standing/moving/digging/swimming within minutes of birth/hatching).

What I fear most about that sort of outcome, of course, is best summarised by what I think is called "Dollo's Law"... Once an adaptation (once useful, no longer so) has been 'bred out' of descendents, it cannot be easily 'bred back in' again. If it's a matter of a feature being "switched off" by a Single Nucleotide Mutation in the 'meta-code of DNA, then it might (assuming the now unreferenced building instructions are relatively intact) but the slow deterioration of a feature would indicate the erosion of the very bodyplan design within the code, not merely 'putting it on the back burner'.

Sorry, I meant to make that briefer, but let us try to summarise it with an even more extreme example... If Earth's environment changed drastically, it's quite possible that it might no longer be inhabitable by anything other than the 'simplest' single-celled organisms, within the cracks of the deepests rocks (where we know that some living things tenaciously eke out an existence even today) or wherever else might exist that escapes the disaster we are as yet unable to describe... It seems to me that the last vestiges of life on Earth (or the representatives that will become the parents of "Phase II" life-on-earth, if not "Phase III" or more), will be the ones that best adapt to conditions... And the simplest one-celled creatures are going to be the ones that can survive. And you say "complexity" is the ultimate direction of natural selection? Survivability. Adaptability. Digging-into-whatever-ecological-niche-exists-...erm...-ability. Those are the watchwords involved...

*snip useful stuff*

I think part of the problem people have with understanding this concept is that they start with the set idea that human beings are the ultimate -the pinnacle - of all life, whether they believe in creation or not. Thus, they get the idea that evolution is supposed to a be a process that was always moving towards humanity. This is, of course, a flawed view of the theory.

I think part of the problem people have with understanding this concept is that they start with the set idea that human beings are the ultimate -the pinnacle - of all life, whether they believe in creation or not. Thus, they get the idea that evolution is supposed to a be a process that was always moving towards humanity. This is, of course, a flawed view of the theory.Agreed. Further more, it seems to me a lot of people are under the impression, that things can't increase in complexity over time.

Oh well, preconcieved notions are the pinnacle of usefulness.. Or something.

You already claimed that in the "String Theory Illegal" thread and I think we already pointed out to you that this is false. Naturalism does not make any such claims.

It does, most of the time. I have several papers that I could reference for you, if you like.
Some quotes would be enough.

Did you post anything yet?

I've been looking through the thread but couldn't find anything. Maybe I missed it.

Bwahaha. I can see you've put a lot of thought into this. Ad hominems do not a case make. Now, if you'd like to show some evidence of your ridiculous claims, we'll be happy to show you why they're ridiculous claims.

Also, how do you explain the conservatives who believe in evolution? How do you explain the Christians who believe in evolution, like myself? Are we just looking to falsify the God we worship? Can you show a single example of any theory that addresses God in any way, especially a negative way?
This seems like a pretty good time to post this ...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=468510

*shameless self-promotion*

Did you post anything yet?

I've been looking through the thread but couldn't find anything. Maybe I missed it.
You didn't. All bluster and repetition, so far. :(

Agreed. Further more, it seems to me a lot of people are under the impression, that things can't increase in complexity over time.

Oh well, preconcieved notions are the pinnacle of usefulness.. Or something.

Yes, that's the point really. The organisms are becoming more complex in some ways, but the mechanism causes them to become in equlibrium with the environment and this drives the whole process. Equlibrium is a move toward simplicity. It takes energy to drive things away from equilibrium, evolution drives toward equilibrium. The move toward equilibrium is the spirit of the laws that Creationists try to use to argue against evolution.

Big shout to all beleivers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster

(more info at http://venganza.org/)

may you all be blessed by his noodly appendeges


May you forever enjoy pasta! *bows head*

Everyone on this thread should read Vine Deloria Jr's "Evolution, Creationism, and other Modern Myths". Assuming you haven't already.

Everyone on this thread should read Vine Deloria Jr's "Evolution, Creationism, and other Modern Myths". Assuming you haven't already.From what I've read from it, I definitely prefer The Blind Watchmaker...

Just my opinion.

I don't think the world looks millions of years old.
I know that there is a lot of speculation based on this. I have had a look at some radioactive dating systems, and my conclusion is that they only work if the world is millions of years old. If it isn't, most of them simply do not work. Do you see the fix? They only work if the assumption is true.


Not true... it would appear you lack a fundamental understanding of how radioactive dating works... so, it's not surprising you find it hard to support.

If you watch a radioactive material decay, and you monitor how long it takes for 'half' of that material to undergo decay to the decayed form, you have a measure of the halflife.

Now, of course, you don't HAVE to watch the whole thing... if you can see the rate of decay, you can assume it remains roughly constant, IF that assumption SEEMS to be supported by experimental results...

Thus, if other isotopes decay that way, and no isotopes decay a diffrent way, AND if each sample of the isotope you analyse SEEMS to decay at about the same rate... it is not an unfair assumption to figure a halflife based on a much shorter period of observation.

Next thought, of course, is that - if you find a material sample of two isotopes (the decaying, and the decayed), and they are pretty much exactly proportional on a 1:1 basis... you can estimate that the sample must be CLOSE to it's 'half-life'. Thus - you can actually figure the age of a sample, based on the rate of decay, and the proportion of sample elements.

So - you see, you don't NEED to assume the age of the world or the sample, as part of your basic assumption. The reason it seems that the world must be millions of years old, is because the math works... and it suggests EXACTLY that.

Emphasis mine and a good reason why you should quite while you're behind. You don't know the difference between the theory of evolution and the conclusions that people have drawn from the theory.

Perhaps you could point out where, exactly.

You clearly ignore physical and chemical evidence that supports current dating methods.

On the contrary, I have read them through and tried to understand them. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html was one of the places I started. Radiometric Dating for dummies.


You clearly ignore the medical benefits derived from evolutionary theory and its decendents, so much so that you ask if there is any.

Feel free to point them out if you like.


You clearly don't know the difference between abiogenesis and the theory of evolution.

Both theories involve evolution. In abiogenesis, it is a chemical evolution, and after the first life form, evolution was biological. Sure there are some differences that I recognise, but both contain basic elements of evolution.


You've several times suggested we descended from apes according to evolutionary theory, a common Creationist LIE.

Descended from apes or descended from a creature that was a common ancestor of both apes and humans is nit picking. For the points that I was using, it makes no difference.


In the end, you pretend to want to discuss this, but you're just regurgitating the same old Creationist mumbo-jumbo, some of which you clearly don't understand and haven't actually questioned.

I come here to discuss and learn, not to win an argument. I certainly do enjoy a good discussion. Obviously my understanding is limited. But I thought that was the point to discussing. Increasing depth of understanding. If I am beginning to understand and am learning to question, perhaps it is because I am taking the fine example of Jocabia.


The real question is are you willing to actually explore evolutionary theory to the point where you won't make these mistakes and you can hold an intelligent conversation about it without the need to constantly be corrected on what the theory actually espouses.

The answer is yes. But I can't promise you that I will one day be free of the need to be corrected. But I do aspire to hold intelligent conversations with folks like yourself.


Thanks for responding. I read his "arguments" and thought the same thing. He is as bad as my 4 year old. However, she is 4.

4 year olds can have great logic sometimes.


Now we're getting somewhere. Or rather; nowhere.
Radioactive decay happens at a steady rate, as far as all observations can tell. That is why examining radioactive decay is a usefull way to determine the age of something.


Sure, we can know rates of decay, but can we know how much radioactivity a sample had to begin with?


If our knowledge about radioactive decay is as wrong as you imply, I'm quite deeply disturbed by our dependency on nuclear power. We obviously don't really know how those things work, we've just been lucky enough not to blow ourselves to bits - assuming that is possible, which we obviously don't know either.


The funny thing (or not so funny thing, e.g., Chernobyl) about that is that we have succeeded is some rather big stuff-ups with radioactivity in the past. At any rate, my point is not that we don't know anything about radioactive decay. The process of decay seems to be relatively well understood. But it is the assumptions used to calculate ages that are questionable.


Tehee.. How old are you B?


31 in a week.


The evolution of active predators in the late Precambrian likely spurred the coevolution of hard parts on other animals. These hard parts fossilize much more easily than the previous soft-bodied animals, leading to many more fossils but not necessarily more animals.


But that doesn't explain why their were more animals then than now. And as far as predation spurring evolution, I follow the logic, but I cannot see how it would work at the level of details. Would predation mean that there is a higher mutation rate. Obviously not. So would it mean that natural selection was stronger? But how could natural selection be stronger? It just is, isn't it? It can't be stronger. But would natural selection caused by predators mean that hard body parts evolved as protection. Possibly. But my understanding of the Cambrian fossils is that there are fossils of all sorts present, not just ones with hard body parts. And could anyone say that there is less predation happening today than back then? I haven't seen any evidence for that explanation.


Early complex animals may have been nearly microscopic. Apparent fossil animals smaller than 0.2 mm have been found in the Doushantuo Formation, China, forty to fifty-five million years before the Cambrian (Chen et al. 2004). Much of the early evolution could have simply been too small to see.

That simply does not explain the presence of a vast array of animal types apparently all ''exploding'' in a relatively short time, as if the jump from 0.2 mm to e.g. 20-2000 mm was apparently coordinated.


The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian (Hoffman 1998; Kerr 2000). A "snowball earth" before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into.

OK, but still not explaining why most of those animals apparently never survived such a favourable environment, or why they seemed to all die together. Perhaps a disaster such as a colliding comet or asteroid would do it, but do we have any evidence for this? I reckon a great flood would fit better.


Hox genes, which control much of an animal's basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify (Carroll 1997).

The presence of Hox genes being found to control embrionic development does not solve the puzzle of how animals can be so varied. Since the Hox genes are all so very homologous, just how to animals develop their distinct characteristics to produce such an 'explosion' of variety?


Atmospheric oxygen may have increased at the start of the Cambrian (Canfield and Teske 1996; Logan et al. 1995; Thomas 1997).

I'm not sure how higher oxygen levels would mean that life evolved faster. Is there any evidence for this? Oxygen radicals are often involved in generation point mutations. Is that what you mean? Usually this is dangerous for life, and rather than speeding up evolution, it would possibly slow it down.


Planktonic grazers began producing fecal pellets that fell to the bottom of the ocean rapidly, profoundly changing the ocean state, especially its oxygenation (Logan et al. 1995).

More food is supposed to accelarate evolution at the bottom of the ocean. Possibly. But how could evolution of land animals be accelerated at the same time? There would have to be a better explanation than 'a rain of fecal pellets'.


Unusual amounts of phosphate were deposited in shallow seas at the start of the Cambrian (Cook and Shergold 1986; Lipps and Signor 1992

Sounds like magic. Unusual amounts, eh? How? But it still doesn't help the land creatures.


But it's besides the point really. The real interest I have in your question, is how you manage to point out something we currently cannot fully account for presently.
How does your critical stance on this, relate to your blatant disregard of observations contradicting Creationism?

On the contrary, I quite enjoyed reading your cut-and-paste. But which observations contradicting Creationism are you referring to? And why do you think I have a blatant disregard for any detail?


If 'Evolutionists' were like you, everyone would simply deny there was a Cambrian period, as it's too much bother - like you deny our knowledge of decay rates.

Like I said, I'm trying not to disregard any detail. But I reckon a Cambrian explosion is better explained by a great flood.

Decay rates are real, but the ages calculated from decay rates require a good deal of speculation that depends on an old universe.


By the way though, evidence of different water-levels, over a period of millions of years, actually contradicts notions of a global flood.

One would only need current levels of water on one side of the globe at one time for the land to be covered with it. Plus, no one really knows how much water lies under the earth.

He is, however, not helpless to save us in the immaterial world, the spiritual world, which is his domain.

But if he is powerless to change our circumstances, he isn't that powerful after all.


Sin exists in the immaterial world as a spiritual concept. It is one of the few things he can save us from.

When a government hangs girls because they were raped, few would hesitate to call that wrong. That is just plain wrong, in my books, and I would not hesitate to call it sin. It is sin that a man rapes a girl. It is injustice that the government punishes the girl and not the man. Sin, Willamena, exists in the material world. I believe in a God who is capable of rescuing a girl from such circumstances. I see that you do not. Fine, but I have to say that your idea of God is not compatible with mine.


And what is wrong with his being "no more than an idea"? It's not like he compares to ideas that you, yourself, generate. MacDonald poses him as a power of imagination, one that, unlike ours, manifests without the intermediation of a physical body. This is raw "creation".

When I referred to MacDonald as saying 'The world which ones sees is his own mind turned inside out,'' it was in the context of him explaining how belief is the limitation of sight. He was saying that imagination is one of the most important ways that we can see God, but that imagination was limited by belief. The God that MacDonald believed in was certainly more than an idea. He was the source of reality, the source of both the spiritual world and the material one and infinitely more real than both of them. I imagine that MacDonald thought of the differences between the spiritual world and the material world something like what we would think of the computer generated world compared to the material world. A computer world is real (in a sense), but it's reality depends upon the material world.


Holding an image of God that is immaterial is in no way eliminating him from the picture.

Agreed, but one must seek the truest possible image of God, not just one the appears to fit with our own preferences.

There's an awful lot I could argue against, but posts are getting too long for cogent discussion... Would you mind if I cherry-pick something that I haven't seen a response on? Not at all. Welcome to the discussion.



-Snip-

And you say "complexity" is the ultimate direction of natural selection? Survivability. Adaptability. Digging-into-whatever-ecological-niche-exists-...erm...-ability. Those are the watchwords involved...

I don't know how you got that out of my post. I never said that complexity had to be the ultimate direction of evolution.

Of course I agree that the direction of natural selection is survival, not complexity. Presumeably, the implication of evolutionary theory is that intelligence developed through natural selection, so that in order to account for the presence of humans, beginning with a simple early life form, the progress of evolution has been upward, from simplicity to complexity. I was not trying to say that evolution cannot be downward also. I work with bacteria involved with symbiosis with plants. In my field, it has been frequently noted that symbiotic bacteria tend to become more and more dependent on their hosts. They lose the information (genes, etc.) that is necessary for free living, through mutations. The less genetic material they carry, the less energy is wasted on useless replication of DNA. I don't argue against this level of evolution.

However, my original point was that in order for evolution to account for humans, given that life began at its simplest form, that evolution had to be directional--not always upward, but certainly upward overall.

Of course if the world was ravaged by e.g. a nuclear war, I could imagine that bacteria would survive it better than humans. In that case, bacteria would be evolutionary superior to humans. But that doesn't make them more intelligent than humans.

Did you post anything yet?

I've been looking through the thread but couldn't find anything. Maybe I missed it.
Yeah, sorry, I hadn't gotten around to replying to your thread.

Here is a quote:

''The results were consistent with an early origin for these regulators during the evolution of the Proteobacteria, with functional pairs of luxI and luxR genes possibly coevolving as regulatory cassettes. In many cases, specific LuxI and LuxR family members appeared to have been inherited horizontally. In particular, those species containing multiple LuxI and/or LuxR homologues usually appeared to have obtained each individual homologue or functional pair of homologues from an independent source. Because multiple homologues interact to form regulatory cascades, this finding suggests that hierarchical signalling pathways can potentially evolve by the sequential integration of pre-existing regulatory circuits acquired from diverse sources.''

From The evolution of bacterial LuxI and LuxR quorum sensing regulators
Kendall M. Graya,1 and James R. Garey, 2001, Society for General Microbiology

The conclusions drawn here appear to depend on several assumptions: 1 a common ancestor, 2 homology (or lack of it) is an indication of ancestry, 3 evolution can account for the development of complexity or producing information systems (e.g. quorum sensing) from non-information.

There are thousands of papers like this one. The assumptions have not been shown to be correct, however, that does not prevent people from writing papers that are based on such assumptions. Fair enough, I say. Such is the nature of science. Anyone can see that science has to be based on assumptions in order to arrive at such conclusions. But science does not have to be based on these particular assumptions. I like to think that science can be based on other assumptions, such as the existence of God, and his ability to design intelligence. Sure, it would mean that I have an assumption that my science does not challenge, i.e., the existence of God. But the science, such as that found in the paper above also has its own assumption, i.e., that information can arise from non-information through evolution (i.e. only natural forces). My argument is that if they can do it, why can't I?

Did we just find a creationist German?

Well, who says only the Yanks are that insane...:D

To me, these discussions are just moot. Creationists clearly don't bother to find out what they're talking about. They build arguments based on limited understandings, hear-say and the ignorance of those who would listen.

For everything a creationist has ever come up with, two scientists have done the research, debated it and eventually explained it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-index.html
So just have a good look through this entire website, and you can have a rest.

-Snip-

And you say "complexity" is the ultimate direction of natural selection? Survivability. Adaptability. Digging-into-whatever-ecological-niche-exists-...erm...-ability. Those are the watchwords involved...I don't know how you got that out of my post. I never said that complexity had to be the ultimate direction of evolution.

My apologies if I misread it, but from the following:

I don't deny that evolutionary theory may allow some curious pathways of development. But given that the first life form was thought to be rather simple, then the presence of humans today will mean that the overall direction was simple to complex, i.e. upwards.

...I sort of interpreted the "then the presence of humans today will mean that the overall direction was simple to complex, i.e. upwards." part as associated with the view of an upwards direction of evolution being one of gaining complexity, as I think you say here...

Of course I agree that the direction of natural selection is survival, not complexity. Presumeably, the implication of evolutionary theory is that intelligence developed through natural selection, so that in order to account for the presence of humans, beginning with a simple early life form, the progress of evolution has been upward, from simplicity to complexity.

But let's skip your (obvious, and practical) understanding of the generics...

However, my original point was that in order for evolution to account for humans, given that life began at its simplest form, that evolution had to be directional--not always upward, but certainly upward overall.I think that while we're intelligently discussing such matters at such a high level (i.e. not just 'shortcutting' it with convenient analogies and hasty generalisations) we ought to ensure we don't muddy the waters by associating the term "upwards" with... well, mere 'progression' along the twisty road, in and around the peaks of "Mount Improbable" (itself a risky analogy, given that it associates altitude with development).

And we also need to ensure that we don't make the assumption that humanity was the target of evolution... Humans cannot be accounted for by evolution wandering upwards, striving for the ultimate 'complexity' of humans (in reality, probably a lot less complex than many other living beings), but merely by various branches of life crawling along the lines of least resistance, cutting channels in the silted up delta of biological possibilities, fanning out, creating backwaters, isolate pools, oxbow lakes, and who knows what kind of hydrological features, as each channel interacts with every other, barring the flows from some and creating new paths of least resistance for others. (Though I'm really unhappy that I've just exchanged "climbing Mount Improbable" for "flowing to the Inevitable Sea", in that analogy.)

Of course if the world was ravaged by e.g. a nuclear war, I could imagine that bacteria would survive it better than humans. In that case, bacteria would be evolutionary superior to humans. But that doesn't make them more intelligent than humans.Naturally. Personally I think intelligence is over-rated as a 'pinnacle'. Sure it allows an 'average, unassuming' bodyplan such as ours to outcompete much more specialised creatures, but we're still shark-food when out of our depth. Intelligence is merely something that we possess instead of claws, fangs, abilities to sporulate or reproduce through pure mitosis as a single-celled form. It does not 'outcompete' the magnetic senses of migratory beasts, electrical-sensing of various predators from fish to platipi, complex emergant behaviours of swarm communities (e.g. driver ants) or the pure survivability of dehydration that various microscopic creatures such as tardigrades... does not outcompete them in any sphere of influence than by its own measures... And, boy, what anthropocentric measures we use. I'm acutely aware that even I cannot totally divorce my wonder of the world from the standards of humanity.

I'm sorry, I just have a reaction against suggesting that we are an end., to which evolution was the directed means. The patently purposeless process has not been heading towards us with any inevitability. Under this philosophy, I personally find myself even more privilidged that I exist, and so lament that I am not making more of my existence than stringing most-probably flawed arguments to this effect on forums such as this....

Not true... it would appear you lack a fundamental understanding of how radioactive dating works... so, it's not surprising you find it hard to support.

Or perhaps it's you that lacks the fundamental understanding. Who is in the postion to say?


If you watch a radioactive material decay, and you monitor how long it takes for 'half' of that material to undergo decay to the decayed form, you have a measure of the halflife.

Now, of course, you don't HAVE to watch the whole thing... if you can see the rate of decay, you can assume it remains roughly constant, IF that assumption SEEMS to be supported by experimental results...

Thus, if other isotopes decay that way, and no isotopes decay a diffrent way, AND if each sample of the isotope you analyse SEEMS to decay at about the same rate... it is not an unfair assumption to figure a halflife based on a much shorter period of observation.

Next thought, of course, is that - if you find a material sample of two isotopes (the decaying, and the decayed), and they are pretty much exactly proportional on a 1:1 basis... you can estimate that the sample must be CLOSE to it's 'half-life'. Thus - you can actually figure the age of a sample, based on the rate of decay, and the proportion of sample elements.

So - you see, you don't NEED to assume the age of the world or the sample, as part of your basic assumption. The reason it seems that the world must be millions of years old, is because the math works... and it suggests EXACTLY that.

None of this is new to me. My question would be just how do we estimate how much radioactive material that a particular rock began with. Most age calculations assume that the rock had 100% of the non-decayed form, so that the presence of 50% non-decayed and 50% decayed would mean that the rock is as old as the half-life of the radioactive material. But if the assumption of 100% non-decayed form is incorrect, then so is the age estimation. One way around this (and you should have mentioned it) was that an age is only calculated when derived from several isotopes, all of which have different half-lives. The idea is that when they agree, the age estimation would most likely be reliable because it is unlikely that the original starting levels of non-decayed forms would all happen to agree by coincidence. The problem is that many samples give a wide range of ages, and the outliers are eliminated leaving only the figures that agree. Furthermore, if the age of the material isn't really that old, such an estimation would never detect it, because it is only looking for older ages. For example, the rubidium-strontium method, rubidium-87 decays with a half-life of 48.8 billion years to strontium-87. How on earth can such a method be used to determine the age of some that is only thousands of years old? Or the potassium-argon method (1.2 billion)? What figure would it give for a sample that is only thousands of years old, or even just a few years old? Researchers try to avoid this by on using samples that are thought to be very old. They have to avoid samples that are close to volcanic activity, since high temperatures melt rocks and mix up the radioactive forms. But how can they know? They don't. They make assumptions.

But if he is powerless to change our circumstances, he isn't that powerful after all.
Circumstances are immaterial.
Edit: Sorry, rather than the broad generalization I should have said, the circumstances that god can change are immaterial.

When a government hangs girls because they were raped, few would hesitate to call that wrong. That is just plain wrong, in my books, and I would not hesitate to call it sin. It is sin that a man rapes a girl. It is injustice that the government punishes the girl and not the man. Sin, Willamena, exists in the material world. I believe in a God who is capable of rescuing a girl from such circumstances. I see that you do not. Fine, but I have to say that your idea of God is not compatible with mine.
Yes, actions are physical, but the intent of those actions is immaterial. The sin is in the intent behind the actions.

When I referred to MacDonald as saying 'The world which ones sees is his own mind turned inside out,'' it was in the context of him explaining how belief is the limitation of sight. He was saying that imagination is one of the most important ways that we can see God, but that imagination was limited by belief. The God that MacDonald believed in was certainly more than an idea. He was the source of reality, the source of both the spiritual world and the material one and infinitely more real than both of them. I imagine that MacDonald thought of the differences between the spiritual world and the material world something like what we would think of the computer generated world compared to the material world. A computer world is real (in a sense), but it's reality depends upon the material world.
I understood your context; I was just saying that the original quote did not have that context. The God that MacDonald believed in was more than a *human* idea, but comparable. As with everything human, our ideas come from the flesh. I linked to MacDonald's essay earlier; if you'd like to read it for yourself, click here (http://www.ev90481.dial.pipex.com/imagination.htm).

Agreed, but one must seek the truest possible image of God, not just one the appears to fit with our own preferences.
The ideal will always be just that; an image of God.

My question would be just how do we estimate how much radioactive material that a particular rock began with.Your link (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html) from earlier provides the answer.

Or perhaps it's you that lacks the fundamental understanding. Who is in the postion to say?



None of this is new to me. My question would be just how do we estimate how much radioactive material that a particular rock began with. Most age calculations assume that the rock had 100% of the non-decayed form, so that the presence of 50% non-decayed and 50% decayed would mean that the rock is as old as the half-life of the radioactive material. But if the assumption of 100% non-decayed form is incorrect, then so is the age estimation. One way around this (and you should have mentioned it) was that an age is only calculated when derived from several isotopes, all of which have different half-lives. The idea is that when they agree, the age estimation would most likely be reliable because it is unlikely that the original starting levels of non-decayed forms would all happen to agree by coincidence. The problem is that many samples give a wide range of ages, and the outliers are eliminated leaving only the figures that agree. Furthermore, if the age of the material isn't really that old, such an estimation would never detect it, because it is only looking for older ages. For example, the rubidium-strontium method, rubidium-87 decays with a half-life of 48.8 billion years to strontium-87. How on earth can such a method be used to determine the age of some that is only thousands of years old? Or the potassium-argon method (1.2 billion)? What figure would it give for a sample that is only thousands of years old, or even just a few years old? Researchers try to avoid this by on using samples that are thought to be very old. They have to avoid samples that are close to volcanic activity, since high temperatures melt rocks and mix up the radioactive forms. But how can they know? They don't. They make assumptions.

One of the assumptions we can make, not too unreasonably, is that ores are laid down similarly whether they are radioactive or not. Thus, we expect a certain degree of 'purity' at certain points in our sample. It isn't identical to assuming 100% of the first isotope, but it is statisitically similar.

Regarding the small time-periods thing... you try to match the sample to the technique. If you find something with a human footprint in it, you are probably going to be looking for a way to calculate age based on thousands, not millions of years.... but, when you get up into the hudnreds of thousands (like ramapithicus remains), your allowed margin of error means that a technique that measures in millions of years is not going to be too uncomfortable a fit. After all, you do not actually NEED an entire 'half' of the material to decay, to work out how far through the 'half life' you are.

Also - you speak of throwing out high volatility samples, and making assumptions based on known physics... as though they were a bad thing. You don't try to analyse the chemistry of water, by sampling the vapour exclusively... indeed, water vapour will likely have very differnt chemistry to the water liquid. So, you do the same thing when you are drawing samples for comparison. You seem to see that as a flaw... I'd say it was minimising experimental interferences.

Yeah, sorry, I hadn't gotten around to replying to your thread.

Here is a quote:

''The results were consistent with an early origin for these regulators during the evolution of the Proteobacteria, with functional pairs of luxI and luxR genes possibly coevolving as regulatory cassettes. In many cases, specific LuxI and LuxR family members appeared to have been inherited horizontally. In particular, those species containing multiple LuxI and/or LuxR homologues usually appeared to have obtained each individual homologue or functional pair of homologues from an independent source. Because multiple homologues interact to form regulatory cascades, this finding suggests that hierarchical signalling pathways can potentially evolve by the sequential integration of pre-existing regulatory circuits acquired from diverse sources.''

From The evolution of bacterial LuxI and LuxR quorum sensing regulators
Kendall M. Graya,1 and James R. Garey, 2001, Society for General Microbiology

The conclusions drawn here appear to depend on several assumptions: 1 a common ancestor, 2 homology (or lack of it) is an indication of ancestry, 3 evolution can account for the development of complexity or producing information systems (e.g. quorum sensing) from non-information.

There are thousands of papers like this one. The assumptions have not been shown to be correct, however, that does not prevent people from writing papers that are based on such assumptions. Fair enough, I say. Such is the nature of science. Anyone can see that science has to be based on assumptions in order to arrive at such conclusions. But science does not have to be based on these particular assumptions. I like to think that science can be based on other assumptions, such as the existence of God, and his ability to design intelligence. Sure, it would mean that I have an assumption that my science does not challenge, i.e., the existence of God. But the science, such as that found in the paper above also has its own assumption, i.e., that information can arise from non-information through evolution (i.e. only natural forces). My argument is that if they can do it, why can't I?


Yes, that's a quote, but it doesn't have anything to do with naturalism, does it?

Remember that your original stament,

And, yes, there is a forgone conclusion within naturalism. One of the being that all of life came form a single ancestor.

clearly says, that the common definition of naturalism includes the assumption that life originated from a single ancestor. Your above post is neither a definition of naturalism nor does it mention naturalism in any way.

So far, you have failed to show any evidence for your claim both in this, as well as in the "String Theory Illegal" thread.

I think that while we're intelligently discussing such matters at such a high level (i.e. not just 'shortcutting' it with convenient analogies and hasty generalisations) we ought to ensure we don't muddy the waters by associating the term "upwards" with... well, mere 'progression' along the twisty road, in and around the peaks of "Mount Improbable" (itself a risky analogy, given that it associates altitude with development).

And we also need to ensure that we don't make the assumption that humanity was the target of evolution...

I agree. Let's keep a conversation as clear as possible. By upwards, I meant from simple to complex, not less important to more important. Although, given that many people think that God used evolution to create man, it would be legitimate in such a world view to consider humans to be more important that bacteria, given that Christ died for humans, not bacteria (as far was we know). Thus humanity can be considered the 'target' of evolution if it was guided by the supernatural.
However, since we want an un-muddied discussion, let us agree that evolution, seen as the result of the happy accidental conincidence of all the right ingredients coming together at the right time, has no target because it cannot aim. And thus we can agree that humanity was simply a by-product of evolution, according to evolutionary theory. But once again, it just depends on where evolution came from. Did God create evolution in order to create man? At least, from a scientific point of view, it doesn't matter....or does it? It seems to me that this is shaky ground, for the whole issue will always come back to the question, Is there a god, or isn't there? And while the scientific approach is possible for people on both sides of the debate, the complete detachment between science and god isn't.






Humans cannot be accounted for by evolution wandering upwards, striving for the ultimate 'complexity' of humans (in reality, probably a lot less complex than many other living beings), but merely by various branches of life crawling along the lines of least resistance, cutting channels in the silted up delta of biological possibilities, fanning out, creating backwaters, isolate pools, oxbow lakes, and who knows what kind of hydrological features, as each channel interacts with every other, barring the flows from some and creating new paths of least resistance for others. (Though I'm really unhappy that I've just exchanged "climbing Mount Improbable" for "flowing to the Inevitable Sea", in that analogy.)

Nevermind. I can clearly see your point, although I think you have possible used a good deal more words than is necessary.



Naturally. Personally I think intelligence is over-rated as a 'pinnacle'. Sure it allows an 'average, unassuming' bodyplan such as ours to outcompete much more specialised creatures, but we're still shark-food when out of our depth. Intelligence is merely something that we possess instead of claws, fangs, abilities to sporulate or reproduce through pure mitosis as a single-celled form. It does not 'outcompete' the magnetic senses of migratory beasts, electrical-sensing of various predators from fish to platipi, complex emergant behaviours of swarm communities (e.g. driver ants) or the pure survivability of dehydration that various microscopic creatures such as tardigrades... does not outcompete them in any sphere of influence than by its own measures... And, boy, what anthropocentric measures we use. I'm acutely aware that even I cannot totally divorce my wonder of the world from the standards of humanity.

Eloquently put. Our intelligence is merely our advantage, according to the evolutionary story. But perhaps it is a little stronger than fangs and claws, since we are almost capable of wiping ourselves off the planet. I'd like to see the animals do that. On the other hand, if God did use evolution to put us here, we would have to see evolutionary progress in terms of that purpose.


I'm sorry, I just have a reaction against suggesting that we are an end., to which evolution was the directed means. The patently purposeless process has not been heading towards us with any inevitability. Under this philosophy, I personally find myself even more privilidged that I exist, and so lament that I am not making more of my existence than stringing most-probably flawed arguments to this effect on forums such as this....

The idea that we are the end of evolution or the most important creature in creation is based on the Christian concept of God sacrificing himself for our benefit (so far as I know). Take away God, and I agree, you have no purpose for evolution. I'm not sure how you can say that you feel more priviledged to exist knowing that you arrived through a purposeless progression, unless the thought of God putting you here is abhorrant to you. I find that the thought of being placed here by a God that loves me and knows me is a good deal more likely to make me feel priviledged than that of a happy accident. But each to their own, I suppose.

Don't you just love the debates that are made possible on a forum such as this? Where else would you find enough people to engage you at such depth. You rarely find them in your circle of friends.

Yes, that's a quote, but it doesn't have anything to do with naturalism, does it?

I have been arguing that it does, because one can see the underlying assumptions upon which their conclusions depend. Naturalism isn't spelled out, merely implied.




Remember that your original stament,
clearly says, that the common definition of naturalism includes the assumption that life originated from a single ancestor. Your above post is neither a definition of naturalism nor does it mention naturalism in any way.

So far, you have failed to show any evidence for your claim both in this, as well as in the "String Theory Illegal" thread.

Right. The quote that I included was not a definition of naturalism, but rather what conclusions look like coming from science that is based on naturalistic assumptions.
Naturalism does not say that life came from a single ancestor, but that is one of the most common conclusions based on both the evidence and the underlying assumption that only natural causes were involved.

I have never claimed that science articles contained definitions of naturalism, or even a direct mention of naturalism. I am arguing that they are clearly based on naturalistic thinking. Surely you can see that?

However, since we want an un-muddied discussion, let us agree that evolution, seen as the result of the happy accidental conincidence of all the right ingredients coming together at the right time, has no target because it cannot aim. And thus we can agree that humanity was simply a by-product of evolution, according to evolutionary theory.
LOL. And you still default to a wording that suggests otherwise...
I guess bad habits die hard. :)

I have been arguing that it does, because one can see the underlying assumptions upon which their conclusions depend. Naturalism isn't spelled out, merely implied.

Right. The quote that I included was not a definition of naturalism, but rather what conclusions look like coming from science that is based on naturalistic assumptions.
Naturalism does not say that life came from a single ancestor, but that is one of the most common conclusions based on both the evidence and the underlying assumption that only natural causes were involved.

I have never claimed that science articles contained definitions of naturalism, or even a direct mention of naturalism. I am arguing that they are clearly based on naturalistic thinking. Surely you can see that?

That's a bit better. Only that you'd have to change "were involved" to "can be observed" and add a "of science" after "common conclusions". You might also want to underline the part where it says "based on evidence".

Ok, I guess we can now agree that

And, yes, there is a forgone conclusion within naturalism. One of the being that all of life came form a single ancestor.

is false.

Ok, I guess we can now agree that

is false.
Okay, now it's your turn. Prove that your have demonstrated that in any way.

Okay, now it's your turn. Prove that your have demonstrated that in any way.

I probably won't be able to - "prove a negative" and all that. I could post a hundred different definitions of naturalism, none of which concluding that life originated from a common ancestor or even mentioning anything remotely like that, and that still wouldn't prove anything. It would only be "strong evidence" that there are no such definitions of naturalism.

On the other Bruarong would only have to post one definition that says so and my theory that there are no definitions of naturalism that make such claims would be falsified.

When a government hangs girls because they were raped, few would hesitate to call that wrong. That is just plain wrong, in my books, and I would not hesitate to call it sin. It is sin that a man rapes a girl. It is injustice that the government punishes the girl and not the man. Sin, Willamena, exists in the material world. I believe in a God who is capable of rescuing a girl from such circumstances. I see that you do not. Fine, but I have to say that your idea of God is not compatible with mine.

Can, perhaps, but does God do so? Last I checked, there weren't any raped girls about to be executed that disappeared by the divine hand of God. Now, God might have moved protestors to organize, or leaders to soften their policies, or any number of things, but these would appear perfectly natural to any outside observer.

I like to think that science can be based on other assumptions, such as the existence of God, and his ability to design intelligence. Sure, it would mean that I have an assumption that my science does not challenge, i.e., the existence of God. But the science, such as that found in the paper above also has its own assumption, i.e., that information can arise from non-information through evolution (i.e. only natural forces). My argument is that if they can do it, why can't I?

Your assumption is not falsifiable. Theirs is, and there are, indeed, people trying to falsify it all the time. It was through attempts at falsification that it first became theory.

What you "like to think" is irrelevant. A scientific theory cannot be based in a non-falsifiable assumption.

None of this is new to me. My question would be just how do we estimate how much radioactive material that a particular rock began with. Most age calculations assume that the rock had 100% of the non-decayed form, so that the presence of 50% non-decayed and 50% decayed would mean that the rock is as old as the half-life of the radioactive material.

This is patently incorrect. Most radioactive dating techniques assume that the beginning ratio is the same as the ratio in objects at the surface today. For instance, there is a fairly constant ration of C12-C14 in organic material which is constantly being turned over. When said material dies, turnover ceases and decay can begin. The assumption made in using this isotope for dating is not that you start out with 100% C14, but that you start out with the same ratio that we see in all organic material. This certainly allows room for error, as there may have been more or less of any given radioactive material present in your average material at a certain time, but we have seen it to be constant since measurements have begun. If, 1000 years from now, we have measured a trend that changes these estimations, they will be changed.

Furthermore, if the age of the material isn't really that old, such an estimation would never detect it, because it is only looking for older ages. For example, the rubidium-strontium method, rubidium-87 decays with a half-life of 48.8 billion years to strontium-87. How on earth can such a method be used to determine the age of some that is only thousands of years old? Or the potassium-argon method (1.2 billion)?

Three are these crazy things called exponentials. You don't have to be at or near half-decayed in order to measure radioactive decay. Of course, rubidium decay would be a rather unlikely choice to use as the definitive method for something that was only giving us a thousand-year age. If that is what was measured, then we would most likely move to carbon dating, or some other method which is accurate within a few thousand years.

What figure would it give for a sample that is only thousands of years old, or even just a few years old?

X = X(0)*exp^(lambda*t)


The idea that we are the end of evolution or the most important creature in creation is based on the Christian concept of God sacrificing himself for our benefit (so far as I know). Take away God, and I agree, you have no purpose for evolution.

And this is the problem. You interject your religion into a theory, and then try to make claims about that theory based on your interjection of your religion.

I have been arguing that it does, because one can see the underlying assumptions upon which their conclusions depend. Naturalism isn't spelled out, merely implied.

And you fail to see that those "underlying" assumptions are previous conclusions. Thus, they aren't really "underlying" assumptions. They are no different than the scientists who assumed that Newton's Laws were correct once they had been backed up enough, and continued to use it until evidence that was contradictory was found.

Meanwhile, if naturalism is the idea that there is no God or that God doesn't interfere, or whatever you wish to imply, why is it that most scientists have no problem reconciling their religion, which often has a God that interferes in everyday life all the time, with their science? Could it be that they simply don't use God as an underlying assumption for a given explanation?

I probably won't be able to - "prove a negative" and all that. I could post a hundred different definitions of naturalism, none of which concluding that life originated from a common ancestor or even mentioning anything remotely like that, and that still wouldn't prove anything. It would only be "strong evidence" that there are no such definitions of naturalism.

On the other Bruarong would only have to post one definition that says so and my theory that there are no definitions of naturalism that make such claims would be falsified.
The claim that you have successfully demonstrated something (agreeance, in this case) is not a negative claim but a positive one.

The claim that you have successfully demonstrated something (agreeance, in this case) is not a negative claim but a positive one.

Oh, that you mean. Well, I don't know if Bruarong and I agree. I just assumed it, since Bruarong altered his/her statement about naturalism. That's why there is a "I guess" in the sentence.

The naturalists' outlook on life was dominated by determinism--the position that human life is absolutely determined by environmental forces. Whereas the realists (Howells, James, and others) presented dramas of meaningful human choice and free will, the naturalists sketched a stark fictional landscape where force rules and the autonomous will is just a nice idea we fall back on. - University of North Carolina (http://www.unc.edu/courses/pre2000fall/eng81br1/natur.html)

As defined by philosopher Paul Draper, naturalism is "the hypothesis that the physical world is a 'closed system' in the sense that nothing that is neither a part nor a product of it can affect it."

Mitochondrial Eve is "the most-recent common ancestor of all humans alive on Earth..." "The premise of the idea is that we can all be traced back to a single woman living in Africa approximately 200,000 years ago." - BBC.uk.co

"And, yes, there is a forgone conclusion within naturalism. One of them being that all of life came from a single ancestor." - Bruarong

Now, it could be (and has been) argued that modern science is not founded in the philosophy of naturalism --I don't buy it, but regardless there is no significant difference between the conclusions each must come to from the data presented of the natural world. In both, there is no room for supernatural forces to be considered. In both, the natural world is there to be revealed to us through systematic means. In essence, the conclusions of those using the scientific method are the conclusions of the naturalist philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy#Origin_of_the_term).

Oh, that you mean. Well, I don't know if Bruarong and I agree. I just assumed it, since Bruarong altered his/her statement about naturalism. That's why there is a "I guess" in the sentence.
He didn't alter his statement, he expanded upon it.

He didn't alter his statement, he expanded upon it.

Well, (s)he went from "it's an inherent conclusion of naturalism" to "it's a conclusion of certain assumptions AND evidence".

That's quite a difference.

I still do not agree with his/her formulations (see what I posted above), but it's pretty clear that the evidence (like similarities of DNA) is not part of the philosophical idea of naturalism. Therefore his/her new statement is incompatible with the earlier claim, that the idea of a common ancestor would be a logical conclusion of naturalism.

LOL. And you still default to a wording that suggests otherwise...
I guess bad habits die hard. :)

It's no fun when you are not allowed to use just a tiny touch of harmless sarcasm in your definitions.


Yes, actions are physical, but the intent of those actions is immaterial. The sin is in the intent behind the actions.

OK, then I meant both sin and it's results. Sin itself occurs in the mind, but the results of sin have to be material, at least in some cases. And, anyway, if something exists in the human mind, how do we know that it isn't material, for example, an arrangement of atoms in the mind. (I know that does sound a bit silly, but perhaps you could attempt a serious reply.)


I understood your context; I was just saying that the original quote did not have that context. The God that MacDonald believed in was more than a *human* idea, but comparable. As with everything human, our ideas come from the flesh. I linked to MacDonald's essay earlier; if you'd like to read it for yourself, click here.

That is a great link. Thanks. I bookmarked it. But I'd also like to point out that the quote that I have been using from MacDonald was quite a favourite of his (''The world which one sees is really his own mind turned inside out''), as I understand, and I suspect he used it on a number of occasions, perhaps even in a variety of contexts.


The ideal will always be just that; an image of God.

In the Christian world view, there will come a time when the ideal and the reality will meet. It's called the Judgment where every knee shall bow, or so the Scriptures say. I doubt MacDonald would have denied that, since he was a Christian.

Perhaps you could point out where, exactly.

I was going to, but you did so very accurately for me. You realize abiogenesis is related to evolution like the Big Bang is related to gravity. No, you don't realize and that's the problem. Evolutionary theory does not in ANY way rely on abiogenesis to be true and abiogenesis does not rely on Evolutionary theory to be true. Abiogenesis relies on evolutionary theory for evidence, just like the Big Bang theory relies on the law of gravity for evidence.

On the contrary, I have read them through and tried to understand them. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html was one of the places I started. Radiometric Dating for dummies.

Tried to understand is the operative word. Your understanding of them has been called into serious question when you acted like radioactive decay is a circular argument. Again, it's about as reasonable as arguing that gravity is a circular argument.

Feel free to point them out if you like.

Again, more proof that you don't understand. Much of our medical testing is based on our understanding of evolution. Our understanding of what makes us sick has been furthered by our understanding of evolution. Evolution is the basis for modern biology and modern biology is the basis for modern medicine. But, hey, we're just being circular. The life expency hasn't increased and our ability to combat disease hasn't gotten better in the last century. I say the next time you go to the doc you demand that he treat you with 18th century techniques that predate evolution interfering with the pure science of medicine.

Both theories involve evolution. In abiogenesis, it is a chemical evolution, and after the first life form, evolution was biological. Sure there are some differences that I recognise, but both contain basic elements of evolution.

Yep. Both gravity and the Big Bang involve gravity. Let's start arguing that the Big Bang is really just the Law of Gravity. Lumping evolution with abiogenesis makes about that much sense. Your understanding of the theory just gets more questionable every time you defend such ignorant lumping of theories in order to argue against them.

Descended from apes or descended from a creature that was a common ancestor of both apes and humans is nit picking. For the points that I was using, it makes no difference.

No, it's not. It's a Creationist lie playing to the emotions of human beings that don't want to think of themselves as having descended from apes. It's propaganda and not very good propaganda. Your appeals to emotion better at least be accurate. And for the points you were using it suggests you don't know anything about what you're talking about.

I come here to discuss and learn, not to win an argument. I certainly do enjoy a good discussion. Obviously my understanding is limited. But I thought that was the point to discussing. Increasing depth of understanding. If I am beginning to understand and am learning to question, perhaps it is because I am taking the fine example of Jocabia.

If you're here to learn, and, quite honestly, I'll take your word for it, your first step should be to push out the propaganda you've been fed. Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate theories that each deserve their own time in the sun and stand and fall on their own merits. We did not descend from apes as far as anyone believes and no popular theory holds that we do. Modern medicine has absolutely relied on our understanding of evolution to make many of the leaps and bounds it's made in the last quarter century or so. Radioactive dating isn't something that science made up to disprove the Bible. It was something that was discovered and it was later discovered that using radioactive material it was possible to use it for dating artifacts.

The answer is yes. But I can't promise you that I will one day be free of the need to be corrected. But I do aspire to hold intelligent conversations with folks like yourself.

Dude, I'm not suggesting all of us aren't constantly learning. Making mistakes is forgiveable. Defending propaganda given by a movement that's very purpose is to defend its beliefs not through logic and understanding but propaganda and misunderstanding does not help your position. Believe in literal Creation. It's a perfectly logical belief so long as you argue with the evidence instead of against it.

4 year olds can have great logic sometimes.

I couldn't agree more. You can say a lot about four-year-olds but there is reason for the saying "from the mouths of babes...". Children have an amazing knack for cutting through the societal crap and just asking the question at the heart of things.

Sure, we can know rates of decay, but can we know how much radioactivity a sample had to begin with?

Certainly, if you know what it decays into. If you open a bottle of soda it decays, not at a steady rate, however. If you look at the sample of flat soda you can determine how much non-flat soda there was to begin with by looking at how much water is in the sample.

The funny thing (or not so funny thing, e.g., Chernobyl) about that is that we have succeeded is some rather big stuff-ups with radioactivity in the past. At any rate, my point is not that we don't know anything about radioactive decay. The process of decay seems to be relatively well understood. But it is the assumptions used to calculate ages that are questionable.

A minute ago you said it was a circular assumption. Now your admitting that the process of decay is fairly-well understood. Whether or not mistakes are made in dating you must admit that the process is founded on good science. You could argue that one sample or another is messed up and thus badly dated, but you're going to have to offer some evidence that all samples are messed up or radioactive dating really pretty much kills the argument that this is a young earth (unless of course you accept that a young earth could simply defy the scientific method, in which case you'd have to accept that science is doing its job and it will never address a young earth model since it defies the evidence).

But that doesn't explain why their were more animals then than now. And as far as predation spurring evolution, I follow the logic, but I cannot see how it would work at the level of details. Would predation mean that there is a higher mutation rate. Obviously not. So would it mean that natural selection was stronger? But how could natural selection be stronger? It just is, isn't it? It can't be stronger. But would natural selection caused by predators mean that hard body parts evolved as protection. Possibly. But my understanding of the Cambrian fossils is that there are fossils of all sorts present, not just ones with hard body parts. And could anyone say that there is less predation happening today than back then? I haven't seen any evidence for that explanation.

The number of species is in and of itself a form of equilibrium. Species fill niches. In different environments there are different niches. The number of niches are not always equal. It's been discovered that on isolated islands that there are some instances where there are tons of species and instances where there are very few. This is because the equilibrium level for the number of species and the niches they filled were different on the two islands. Could you please offer up an explanation of why there should always be the same number or a similar number of species? Because only with evidence suggesting this is necessary do you arguments hold.

That simply does not explain the presence of a vast array of animal types apparently all ''exploding'' in a relatively short time, as if the jump from 0.2 mm to e.g. 20-2000 mm was apparently coordinated.

Apparantly coordinated? By whom? The 'coordination' suggests an environmental change that required quick evolution or extinction. We know which way it went.

OK, but still not explaining why most of those animals apparently never survived such a favourable environment, or why they seemed to all die together. Perhaps a disaster such as a colliding comet or asteroid would do it, but do we have any evidence for this? I reckon a great flood would fit better.

But do we have any evidence for this? Same question. The evidence we have against a great flood is that it is not possible for the water to cover the entire world.

The presence of Hox genes being found to control embrionic development does not solve the puzzle of how animals can be so varied. Since the Hox genes are all so very homologous, just how to animals develop their distinct characteristics to produce such an 'explosion' of variety?

Again, it's driven by environment.

I'm not sure how higher oxygen levels would mean that life evolved faster. Is there any evidence for this? Oxygen radicals are often involved in generation point mutations. Is that what you mean? Usually this is dangerous for life, and rather than speeding up evolution, it would possibly slow it down.

It could be dangerous for life 90% of the time which would reach your 'usually' and still be a boon for evolution. Evolution is not about individual success but species success.

More food is supposed to accelarate evolution at the bottom of the ocean. Possibly. But how could evolution of land animals be accelerated at the same time? There would have to be a better explanation than 'a rain of fecal pellets'.

Because land animals and sea animals are not mutually exclusive. Again, there are changes to the environment that could very well be global, such as a change to the jet streams, changes in the global weather, geologic instability, etc.

Sounds like magic. Unusual amounts, eh? How? But it still doesn't help the land creatures.

Hmmmm... not actually trying to have a conversation here, are you? You didn't even address the point.

Like I said, I'm trying not to disregard any detail. But I reckon a Cambrian explosion is better explained by a great flood.

Explained how? How does the sudden development of so many species have anything to do with a flood?

Decay rates are real, but the ages calculated from decay rates require a good deal of speculation that depends on an old universe.

Huh? If decay rates are tested on things with known ages and found to be accurate then it's not speculation to assume they remain accurate. In fact, it's speculation to assume they don't. Speculation you've offered no evidence for.

One would only need current levels of water on one side of the globe at one time for the land to be covered with it. Plus, no one really knows how much water lies under the earth.

Link, please. And please offer an unbiased source. Certainly, you must admit that there is no advantage to a scientist in lying about the amount of water on the earth so can you link to a scientific journal that says that if all of the water on earth were liquid that the earth would be completely covered by water. With all the worries about the melting of ice caps, you should have no problem linking to this. I'll wait.

Also, how does water UNDER the earth help. If a flood occurred it would remain under the earth. In fact, if a flood happened not only would the water under the earth remain under the earth but all other gaps under the earth would have to fill in. Especially if that flood lasted forty days.

Well, (s)he went from "it's an inherent conclusion of naturalism" to "it's a conclusion of certain assumptions AND evidence".

That's quite a difference.

I still do not agree with his/her formulations (see what I posted above), but it's pretty clear that the evidence (like similarities of DNA) is not part of the philosophical idea of naturalism. Therefore his/her new statement is incompatible with the earlier claim, that the idea of a common ancestor would be a logical conclusion of naturalism.
And I saw something different; I saw him go from "this is a foregone conclusion of naturalism" to "this is not included in the definition of naturalism", both of which I agree with.

Well, (s)he went from "it's an inherent conclusion of naturalism" to "it's a conclusion of certain assumptions AND evidence".
That's quite a difference.

I agree, it is somewhat of a difference. But not because I disagree with my original post, only that I realized that it was not communicating to you exactly what I had in mind.

I should point out that I see 'evidence' as a neutral word (although not completely), in this case. When data can be interpreted in terms of both creation and evolution, it can be said to be weak evidence for both, but not strong evidence for either. Thus, when a scientist uses an assumption and evidence to arrive at a conclusion, it cannot be considered good evidence unless there is no alternative way of interpreting the data. Naturalism will always try to interpret the data according to natural forces, to the exclusion of any force that isn't defined as natural. Thus when a scientist interprets the data according to such an assumption (i.e. that only natural forces were responsible), he is will always use something like common ancestry as an assumption upon which to interpret the data (e.g. homology). That is why my two posts above mean the same thing to me. They simply present the same idea in two different ways. You agreed with only one because you and I perhaps differ on semantics.


I still do not agree with his/her formulations (see what I posted above), but it's pretty clear that the evidence (like similarities of DNA) is not part of the philosophical idea of naturalism. Therefore his/her new statement is incompatible with the earlier claim, that the idea of a common ancestor would be a logical conclusion of naturalism.

Similarities in DNA are not a part of the philosophical idea of naturalism, agreed, but naturalism is part of the idea that similarities in homology mean common ancestry.
This was what I have been trying to get at all along.

And I saw something different; I saw him go from "this is a foregone conclusion of naturalism" to "this is not included in the definition of naturalism", both of which I agree with.

First, I think he went even further than "this is not included in the definition":

Naturalism does not say that life came from a single ancestor, but that is one of the most common conclusions based on both the evidence AND the underlying assumption that only natural causes were involved

He clearly says that the conclusion is also based on evidence. If we had different evidence, we might come to a different conclusion and we would still be in the realm of naturalism.

But this is quite interesting: since you agree with his statements, I'd like you to explain how exactly you come to the conclusion that life originated from a single ancestor from the idea of naturalism?

And I saw something different; I saw him go from "this is a foregone conclusion of naturalism" to "this is not included in the definition of naturalism", both of which I agree with.
Even if naturalism & determinism was the same thing, how would a single common ancestor be a foregone conclusion?

You can see 16 billion light years away.

No way the universe is 10000 years old.

You can see 16 billion light years away.

No way the universe is 10000 years old.Yea right, as if we knew the first thing about the speed of light :p

Yea right, as if we knew the first thing about the speed of light :p


I can't tell if you're joking or not. Even if the speed of light does vary, something 16,000,000,000 light years away seems pretty far. I don't think I've heard anything about spacetime which suggests that it's so weird that you can go to 1000 to 16000000000 by the way it works.

I agree, it is somewhat of a difference. But not because I disagree with my original post, only that I realized that it was not communicating to you exactly what I had in mind.

I think it's a very big difference. Mostly because I think that evidence is very important.

Statements like "it's a foregone conclusion" and thus completely ignoring supporting evidence make your claim sound as if science would be unable to alter the theory of a single ancestor without abandoning the idea of naturalism even if contradicting evidence was found.

Which I think is not the case.

I should point out that I see 'evidence' as a neutral word (although not completely), in this case. When data can be interpreted in terms of both creation and evolution, it can be said to be weak evidence for both, but not strong evidence for either. Thus, when a scientist uses an assumption and evidence to arrive at a conclusion, it cannot be considered good evidence unless there is no alternative way of interpreting the data. Naturalism will always try to interpret the data according to natural forces, to the exclusion of any force that isn't defined as natural. Thus when a scientist interprets the data according to such an assumption (i.e. that only natural forces were responsible), he is will always use something like common ancestry as an assumption upon which to interpret the data (e.g. homology). That is why my two posts above mean the same thing to me. They simply present the same idea in two different ways. You agreed with only one because you and I perhaps differ on semantics.

Well, if you critice the idea of naturalism, you should pay more attention to semantics mabye, I think.

Especially since this is the second time we are having the exact same discussion.

Similarities in DNA are not a part of the philosophical idea of naturalism, agreed, but naturalism is part of the idea that similarities in homology mean common ancestry.
This was what I have been trying to get at all along.

Would you care to elaborate this statement?

Then again, I didn't know that anyone who cares enough to debate still believes in the "young universe."


I thought the idea was considered idiotic decades ago.

I can't tell if you're joking or not. Even if the speed of light does vary, something 16,000,000,000 light years away seems pretty far. I don't think I've heard anything about spacetime which suggests that it's so weird that you can go to 1000 to 16000000000 by the way it works.Sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious I was joking.

The speed of light doesn't vary. The speed of photons can obviously be altered, but lightwaves are lightwaves.

Sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious I was joking.

The speed of light doesn't vary. The speed of photons can obviously be altered, but lightwaves are lightwaves.

OO OO OO PARADOX!!!!

Photons are particles of light. Their speed can be varied. The speed of light waves can not.

I love me a good paradox before lunch, thank you.

OO OO OO PARADOX!!!!

Photons are particles of light. Their speed can be varied. The speed of light waves can not.

I love me a good paradox before lunch, thank you.Nah, it isn't a paradox. If a photon stream is accelerated, for example, the lightwave changes.

What we call the speed of light defines a particular wave front, not a particular particle.

You realize abiogenesis is related to evolution like the Big Bang is related to gravity. No, you don't realize and that's the problem. Evolutionary theory does not in ANY way rely on abiogenesis to be true and abiogenesis does not rely on Evolutionary theory to be true. Abiogenesis relies on evolutionary theory for evidence, just like the Big Bang theory relies on the law of gravity for evidence.

I thought gravity was supposed to come out of the big bang. I would say that they are quite related, at least in the minds of those who support the big bang. Are you trying to tell me that they are completely separate. It's new to me that the Big Bang relies on gravity. I thought it was before gravity. As for evidence, how does watching an apple fall tell you that it all had to start with a big bang. I'm trying to follow you, but......you confuse me.

And abiogenesis would have to be related to evolutionary theory. Sure, there is a difference, but I find it hard to separate them, unless you propose that God created to first life. Otherwise it is anyone's guess as to when the first life was supposed to exist, as something distinct from the chemical components that make up life. Heck, we don't even know what the substance of life really is. A transfer of electrons? I try to avoid mixing abiogenesis and biological evolution. But in most of my points about naturalism, you can take your pick. It doesn't make any difference which one I am referring to. Unless you could clearly show me where I have deliberately fudged the edges.



Tried to understand is the operative word. Your understanding of them has been called into serious question when you acted like radioactive decay is a circular argument. Again, it's about as reasonable as arguing that gravity is a circular argument.


Well, I never called it circular, just not proof, since it relies on assumptions, from what I have tried to understand. If only I had a deeper understanding like yours, Jocabia. Seriously. You could be heaps smarter than me. How would I know?


Our understanding of what makes us sick has been furthered by our understanding of evolution.
Really? I was not aware of this. Perhaps you would like to explain.


Evolution is the basis for modern biology and modern biology is the basis for modern medicine. But, hey, we're just being circular. The life expency hasn't increased and our ability to combat disease hasn't gotten better in the last century. I say the next time you go to the doc you demand that he treat you with 18th century techniques that predate evolution interfering with the pure science of medicine.

I still cannot see how evolutionary theory has furthered modern science, except in one (indirect) way. Darwin popularised evolution, and consequently more and more people became interested in science, and ever since then more and more people have become scientists as governments provided more and more funds for research. I guess I could thank Darwin for making evolution popular. But I do not see how evolutionary theory has directly helped modern medicine.


Yep. Both gravity and the Big Bang involve gravity. Let's start arguing that the Big Bang is really just the Law of Gravity. Lumping evolution with abiogenesis makes about that much sense. Your understanding of the theory just gets more questionable every time you defend such ignorant lumping of theories in order to argue against them.


But you seemed to ignore my point about aspect of evolution being present in both abiogenesis and biological evolution. Do you disagree?


No, it's not. It's a Creationist lie playing to the emotions of human beings that don't want to think of themselves as having descended from apes. It's propaganda and not very good propaganda. Your appeals to emotion better at least be accurate. And for the points you were using it suggests you don't know anything about what you're talking about.


But I didn't think you would be at all affected by my suggestion that we have decended from the apes. If it was an appeal to emotion (rather than merely a way of cutting down words, i.e. laziness), I could safely say that I never thought it would make you emotional. Was I wrong?


If you're here to learn, and, quite honestly, I'll take your word for it, your first step should be to push out the propaganda you've been fed. Evolution and Abiogenesis are seperate theories that each deserve their own time in the sun and stand and fall on their own merits. We did not descend from apes as far as anyone believes and no popular theory holds that we do. Modern medicine has absolutely relied on our understanding of evolution to make many of the leaps and bounds it's made in the last quarter century or so. Radioactive dating isn't something that science made up to disprove the Bible. It was something that was discovered and it was later discovered that using radioactive material it was possible to use it for dating artifacts.


How does one recognise propaganda? Messages that have no reasons behind them? But wait, your statements above have no reasons behind them. When you make such statements, do you expect me to find reasons to support them, or are you mocking me?


Dude, I'm not suggesting all of us aren't constantly learning. Making mistakes is forgiveable. Defending propaganda given by a movement that's very purpose is to defend its beliefs not through logic and understanding but propaganda and misunderstanding does not help your position. Believe in literal Creation. It's a perfectly logical belief so long as you argue with the evidence instead of against it.


Good, so I am allowed to hold a different opinion to yours, and you will still think of me as intelligent, rather than filled with propaganda. If I believe you, it will be because of the good reasons that you use, and hopefully not because you are persuasive.


Certainly, if you know what it decays into. If you open a bottle of soda it decays, not at a steady rate, however. If you look at the sample of flat soda you can determine how much non-flat soda there was to begin with by looking at how much water is in the sample.


But the idea of radioactive decay, as I understand it is that rocks often form sealed compartments, so that inside the sealed compartment, the only changes that occur will be the radioactive decay. By measuring both the parent and daughter components, and knowing something about half lives, we can estimate the length of time that compartment has been sealed. But this is based on two assumptions. One is that the compartment must have been sealed. And two that the level of parent and daughter components are comparable at the time of the sealing as they are found scattered in our environment today. And perhaps another assumption is that there was a big bang which started the ball rolling, so to speak. And that the big bang was several billions of years (at least) in the past. That is a lot of assumptions. In the scenario of creation, and a younger earth, such huge numbers would be useless. In that sense, long ages calculated from rocks do not prove long ages existed. They are only consistent with that scenario.


A minute ago you said it was a circular assumption. Now your admitting that the process of decay is fairly-well understood. Whether or not mistakes are made in dating you must admit that the process is founded on good science. You could argue that one sample or another is messed up and thus badly dated, but you're going to have to offer some evidence that all samples are messed up or radioactive dating really pretty much kills the argument that this is a young earth (unless of course you accept that a young earth could simply defy the scientific method, in which case you'd have to accept that science is doing its job and it will never address a young earth model since it defies the evidence).

Not circular assumption. Only circular for those who are attempting to show that an assumption can prove itself. A wise person would not use radioactive dating in that way.


The number of species is in and of itself a form of equilibrium. Species fill niches. In different environments there are different niches. The number of niches are not always equal. It's been discovered that on isolated islands that there are some instances where there are tons of species and instances where there are very few. This is because the equilibrium level for the number of species and the niches they filled were different on the two islands. Could you please offer up an explanation of why there should always be the same number or a similar number of species? Because only with evidence suggesting this is necessary do you arguments hold.


I didn't really understand your point here. Originally, we were discussing the possible causes for the Cambrian explosion. Given that mutation and natural selection (broadly speaking) are the only two known forces involved in evolution, we were looking at what conditions could have impacted these two forces sufficiently to cause such an explosion. One idea was an increase in predation meant that those animals with harder body parts would be more likely to survive, given that e.g. a shell is better protection than a scale, and the shell would also be more likely to be preserved in a fossil form, giving the impression that there was an explosion, but which was really only an explosion of life forms more likely to provide fossils. That is an explanation that I cannot rule out, but neither can I see much evidence for. Particularly as I haven't read anywhere that the Cambrian fossils are more from hard bodied animals than otherwise.


Apparantly coordinated? By whom? The 'coordination' suggests an environmental change that required quick evolution or extinction. We know which way it went.


I was saying that the explosion would contradictory to evolution if it were to look coordinated. That's the point. Unless you say that God caused the explosion, which wouldn't be very naturalistic of you.


Again, it's driven by environment.


I don't see the environment driving anything.


It could be dangerous for life 90% of the time which would reach your 'usually' and still be a boon for evolution. Evolution is not about individual success but species success.


But we were talking about the Cambrian explosion and its causes, not individual species.


Because land animals and sea animals are not mutually exclusive. Again, there are changes to the environment that could very well be global, such as a change to the jet streams, changes in the global weather, geologic instability, etc.


But a rain of fecal pellets might help the sea creatures, but it could hardly help the land creatures. Thus invoking a rain of fecal pellets doesn't explain the Cambrian explosion.


Hmmmm... not actually trying to have a conversation here, are you? You didn't even address the point.


I thought I did. The original call was that there was somehow a high concentration of phosphate in the shallow areas of the ocean, or something to that effect. I wanted to know how, since there probably wasn't any megacities around back then.


Explained how? How does the sudden development of so many species have anything to do with a flood?


Fossils are the mineralised remains of dead animals. Thus fossils depend on death of the animal. A flood would provide a rapid way of burying all animals, both those that lived in the water and on the land. Rapid burial is necessary, because dead fish don't sink. Since many of the fossils, if not most, are from the sea creatures, we would need some sort of rapid movement of earth to cover those sea creatures while they were still alive, before they had a chance to float.
Now, if God created the world and all the species, it may be that such a flood wiped out most of the species. The ones that survived are a bare minority. So a great devastation could easily explain the Cambrian explosion. It wasn't that evolution suddenly produced more variety of life forms, but that the variety that was already there (i.e.,created) was suddenly reduced because of a great catastrophe.


Huh? If decay rates are tested on things with known ages and found to be accurate then it's not speculation to assume they remain accurate. In fact, it's speculation to assume they don't. Speculation you've offered no evidence for.


I can't really offer you evidence, only reasons. But by the way, how can we test the old ages that we get from rocks. Radioactive dating hasn't been around that long, and humans haven't been around much longer. There is no way to test radioactive dating really works, except by using negatives, e.g., rocks that were known to form in the last decade or so. But a bunch of negatives does not test the accuracy of the method. It only tells us how it works with negatives.


Link, please. And please offer an unbiased source. Certainly, you must admit that there is no advantage to a scientist in lying about the amount of water on the earth so can you link to a scientific journal that says that if all of the water on earth were liquid that the earth would be completely covered by water. With all the worries about the melting of ice caps, you should have no problem linking to this. I'll wait.


I don't know any unbiased sources. Do you? I have read that if the earth was perfectly spherical, than it would be covered with something like a meter of water. That is quite a lot, wouldn't you say? I can't be bothered finding links, to be honest, otherwise it might take me all night to find the jolly stuff.


Also, how does water UNDER the earth help. If a flood occurred it would remain under the earth. In fact, if a flood happened not only would the water under the earth remain under the earth but all other gaps under the earth would have to fill in. Especially if that flood lasted forty days.

The scriptures say that the flood gates of the great deep opened up, and water gushed out. Sort of what happens when you squeeze a bottle of water. If the shape of the earth was distorted, and if there was water in the earth, it would obviously come gushing out. Depending on how violent the action, it would have caused devastating floods capable of rushing over mountains. The water would have receded once the earth gradually retained its original shape and eventually slowed down from its 'mad rush around the globe'. But I am only speculating.

OK, then I meant both sin and it's results. Sin itself occurs in the mind, but the results of sin have to be material, at least in some cases.
But it is not the physical action itself that we are held accountable for; we are accountable for our reasons for doing the things we do, and the choice to do it. Wilful action. Both sin and will are concepts.

And, anyway, if something exists in the human mind, how do we know that it isn't material, for example, an arrangement of atoms in the mind. (I know that does sound a bit silly, but perhaps you could attempt a serious reply.)
It is material, in an objective sense; but that is not any sense that we, as individuals, have direct access to. We experience thoughts, feelings, imaginings; we don't experience atoms arranging themselves. We experience the translation of the physical as intangible, immaterial things.

This is where god has dominion: over the human heart and the human soul. Both, in my opinion, exist in the mind (as symbols of parts of mind). The only place where the child rapist is going to experience any sort of god-inspired change is in his heart and in his soul.

That is a great link. Thanks. I bookmarked it. But I'd also like to point out that the quote that I have been using from MacDonald was quite a favourite of his (''The world which one sees is really his own mind turned inside out''), as I understand, and I suspect he used it on a number of occasions, perhaps even in a variety of contexts.

In the Christian world view, there will come a time when the ideal and the reality will meet. It's called the Judgment where every knee shall bow, or so the Scriptures say. I doubt MacDonald would have denied that, since he was a Christian.
"Every knee shall bow" is a metaphor, that is, in this case, a use of words of things of the physical world to describe something spiritual. MacDonald describes the use of metaphor very well in his essay. Words of the material world as 'garments' of immaterial thoughts.

I think it's a very big difference. Mostly because I think that evidence is very important.

Of course evidence is important, but not more than the assumptions, I would say.


Statements like "it's a foregone conclusion" and thus completely ignoring supporting evidence make your claim sound as if science would be unable to alter the theory of a single ancestor without abandoning the idea of naturalism even if contradicting evidence was found.

Which I think is not the case.

I think part of the problem is that you still do not understand what I am arguing here. I have never claimed that supporting evidence was ignored by naturalism. Neither would I agree with the idea that naturalism prevents science from concluding either a single ancestor or otherwise. Never have I even thought that.



Well, if you critice the idea of naturalism, you should pay more attention to semantics mabye, I think.

I think the critical thing here is that I haven't been criticising naturalism, just pointing out its presence in modern science. When you assume that I have been criticising it, no wonder you misunderstand me, for heaven's sake.


Especially since this is the second time we are having the exact same discussion.


It may not be fair of you to assume that all of the blame lies with me. However, I shall keep trying to post in such a way that people cannot take them the wrong way. Heaven help me, it isn't as easy as it looks.


Would you care to elaborate this statement?

My point was that conclusions such as homology pointing to common ancestry are based on naturalistic thinking, and not that naturalistic thinking was based on the discovery of homology in DNA or in animal body forms. One must begin with the philosophical position and develop the theory from there. Just like the Christian/Jewish one begins with the statement from God (I AM) and Descartes with his statement (I think, therefore I am), so the naturalist begins with his statement about only natural forces, and attempts to build his world view on top of it.

But this is quite interesting: since you agree with his statements, I'd like you to explain how exactly you come to the conclusion that life originated from a single ancestor from the idea of naturalism?
I explained already, but I can say it again: I see no significant difference between the conclusions that science would arrive at using the scientific method, which confines itself to interpretation of data from the natural world, and the conclusions reached by a natural philosophy, which confines itself to interpretation of data from the natural world. The data in this case is the evidence uncovered in DNA research.

Even if naturalism & determinism was the same thing, how would a single common ancestor be a foregone conclusion?
Nah, they are not the same thing, but the conclusion drawn by the scientific method is the same conclusion the naturalist would logically come to, simply because the natural world is deterministic. Causes follow from effects. There can only be so many explanations that would account for it, and the naturalist, like the scientist, would choose the one that makes the most sense in the largest context (for example, explaning other things as well).

I think it's a very big difference. Mostly because I think that evidence is very important.

Statements like "it's a foregone conclusion" and thus completely ignoring supporting evidence make your claim sound as if science would be unable to alter the theory of a single ancestor without abandoning the idea of naturalism even if contradicting evidence was found.

Which I think is not the case.
You are right; that is a very important difference. But he is not claiming naturalism as the cause of the conclusion, just the naturalist as the agent of the conclusion.

I thought gravity was supposed to come out of the big bang.

You make it sound like spilled milk... like the 'bang' happened, and 'leaked' gravity everywhere.

Although gravity only gains 'meaning' in the INSTANT of the 'bang'... that doesn't mean that the ONLY logical concept is that 'gravity' is somehow 'generated' by the Bang, itself.

To me, it seems much MORE logical to assume that gravity is an effect that mass has on space and other mass.... thus, it 'started' at the Bang... but it wasn't strictly speaking 'created' from the Bang.

Nah, they are not the same thing, but the conclusion drawn by the scientific method is the same conclusion the naturalist would logically come to, simply because the natural world is deterministic. Causes follow from effects. There can only be so many explanations that would account for it, and the naturalist, like the scientist, would choose the one that makes the most sense in the largest context (for example, explaning other things as well).
Eh...

Did you read the post you quoted W? :confused:

I asked why you agree that a single common ancestry is a foregone conclusion, for naturalism/determinism. I didn't equate the two philosophies.

I did understand that you believe determinism have something to do with your belief that a single common ancestry is a foregone conclusion in naturalist pholosophy. Thus the "Even if the two were regarded as one & the same ... ".

Of course evidence is important, but not more than the assumptions, I would say.



I think part of the problem is that you still do not understand what I am arguing here. I have never claimed that supporting evidence was ignored by naturalism. Neither would I agree with the idea that naturalism prevents science from concluding either a single ancestor or otherwise. Never have I even thought that.


Sorry, my wording here was unclear. What I wanted to say is that it's misleading to say that naturalism leads to this conclusion, without mentioning that this conclusion is arrived mostly through evidence.

Since naturalism itself does not lead to this conclusion, it paints a misleading picture of the idea of naturalism to claim this.

Since the idea of naturalism, as well as certain scientific theories are currently under attack in the US (in a very heated and not always rational debate), it seems llike a good idea to me, to keep one's facts and definitions accurate.


I think the critical thing here is that I haven't been criticising naturalism, just pointing out its presence in modern science. When you assume that I have been criticising it, no wonder you misunderstand me, for heaven's sake.

Well, you surely have been critizing it. You have several times pointed out what you perceive as flaws in the idea of naturalism and attacked them. I would call that criticing.

But it is not the physical action itself that we are held accountable for; we are accountable for our reasons for doing the things we do, and the choice to do it. Wilful action. Both sin and will are concepts.

That all depends on point of view. Historically (and perhaps even now), the Catholic church would disagree. Some theologians, such as Abelard, would agree here, but then that means that someone who doesn't know that X is wrong doing X is not sinning, and throws original sin out the window....

I explained already, but I can say it again: I see no significant difference between the conclusions that science would arrive at using the scientific method, which confines itself to interpretation of data from the natural world, and the conclusions reached by a natural philosophy, which confines itself to interpretation of data from the natural world. The data in this case is the evidence uncovered in DNA research.

But that was kind of the whole point. Evidence. Data. Without the evidence you don't arrive at any conclusions.

You are right; that is a very important difference. But he is not claiming naturalism as the cause of the conclusion, just the naturalist as the agent of the conclusion.

He said that naturalism directly leads to this conclusion. Other than that, what's your point?

I thought gravity was supposed to come out of the big bang. I would say that they are quite related, at least in the minds of those who support the big bang. Are you trying to tell me that they are completely separate. It's new to me that the Big Bang relies on gravity. I thought it was before gravity. As for evidence, how does watch an apple fall tell you that it all had to start with gravity. I'm trying to follow you, but......you confuse me.

Um, no, gravity does not come from the Big Bang (unless you're simply being ridiculous. According to that logic the Bible came from it to. Does that mean the Bible and the Big Bang are related too?). And the Big Bang does not come from gravity. They are related, but they are not intertwined. Neither is abiogenesis and evolution. You cannot argue about one by attacking the other or vice versa, which is what you are trying to do.

And abiogenesis would have to be related to evolutionary theory. Sure, there is a difference, but I find it hard to separate them, unless you propose that God created to first life. Otherwise it is anyone's guess as to when the first life was supposed to exist, as something distinct from the chemical components that make up life. Heck, we don't even know what the substance of life really is. A transfer of electrons? I try to avoid mixing abiogenesis and biological evolution. But in most of my points about naturalism, you can take your pick. It doesn't make any difference which one I am referring to. Unless you could clearly show me where I have deliberately fudged the edges.

You find it hard to seperate them and that is your problem. If you can't address evolution without addressing abiogenesis then you are no scientist nor are you even attempting to address the issue scientifically.

Well, I never called it circular, just not proof, since it relies on assumptions, from what I have tried to understand. If only I had a deeper understanding like yours, Jocabia. Seriously. You could be heaps smarter than me. How would I know?

Your sarcasm aside, you've also pointed out that you don't know the difference between intelligence and simply be so ensconced in your position that you are unwilling to dismiss propaganda so long as it supports your point. All reasoning relies on assumption. In science those assumptions have to include evidence and observation, in religion they don't. Your arguments require not evidence or observation and that is why they are religious in principle.

Really? I was not aware of this. Perhaps you would like to explain.

Amusing. How does lying help your position? Care to our understanding of the flu virus and how it does not incorporate evolutionary theory? How about AIDS? How about cancer? How about the common cold?

I still cannot see how evolutionary theory has furthered modern science, except in one (indirect) way. Darwin popularised evolution, and consequently more and more people became interested in science, and ever since then more and more people have become scientists as governments provided more and more funds for research. I guess I could thank Darwin for making evolution popular. But I do not see how evolutionary theory has directly helped modern medicine.

Your inability to acknowledge something does not make it cease to exist. You evidence your bias more in every post. You're not interested in educating yourself or furthering your understanding. You're interested in furthering your religious interests and this makes you not a scientist.

But you seemed to ignore my point about aspect of evolution being present in both abiogenesis and biological evolution. Do you disagree?

Evolution is used to support abiogenesis. It is a logical fallacy to say that if you attack evidence for something that you disprove the conclusion. You have to find evidence against the conclusion in order to disprove the conclusion. This is something most Creationists fail to acknowledge.

But I didn't think you would be at all affected by my suggestion that we have decended from the apes. If it was an appeal to emotion (rather than merely a way of cutting down words, i.e. laziness), I could safely say that I never thought it would make you emotional. Was I wrong?

No. But you're not only talking to me. Other people are reading this thread and you know it. You are being intellectually dishonest. It simply shows that you're perfectly okay with spreading propaganda. And this shows the true color of your argument.

How does one recognise propaganda? Messages that have no reasons behind them? But wait, your statements above have no reasons behind them. When you make such statements, do you expect me to find reasons to support them, or are you mocking me?

You recognize that some of your statements are blatantly false and then defend your use of them. What possible reason could you have for defending them besides propaganda? Admit you were wrong and move on.

Good, so I am allowed to hold a different opinion to yours, and you will still think of me as intelligent, rather than filled with propaganda. If I believe you, it will be because of the good reasons that you use, and hopefully not because you are persuasive.

I think of you as intelligent AND filled with propaganda. When you start using logical arguments rather arguments you already know are false when you use them, I will likely change my opinion.

But the idea of radioactive decay, as I understand it is that rocks often form sealed compartments, so that inside the sealed compartment, the only changes that occur will be the radioactive decay. By measuring both the parent and daughter components, and knowing something about half lives, we can estimate the length of time that compartment has been sealed. But this is based on two assumptions. One is that the compartment must have been sealed. And two that the level of parent and daughter components are comparable at the time of the sealing as they are found scattered in our environment today. And perhaps another assumption is that there was a big bang which started the ball rolling, so to speak. And that the big bang was several billions of years (at least) in the past. That is a lot of assumptions. In the scenario of creation, and a younger earth, such huge numbers would be useless. In that sense, long ages calculated from rocks do not prove long ages existed. They are only consistent with that scenario.

No, again you try to mix together theories to make broad assumptions of them and to paint them as unreasonable. Scientific theories stand on their own, it's not a mass of religious dogma. The Big Bang HAS NOTHING to do with radioactive decay.

Now, here's where you fall completely outside of logic, when you claim things don't work then like they do now. I'll give an example: We know that if pile up wood and set it on fire that it can be used to cook food because it gives off heat. We have built fire after fire and they always give off heat when composed this way. We have never been given any evidence to the contrary. So we can assume that if someone describes a fire from 4000 years ago that it also behaved the same way. Now it's possible the laws of physics and chemistry changed over that period but in the absense of evidence to the contrary it is perfectly reasonable to assume they haven't. That's logical. Now if you tell me that people used to build fires in order to create ice, then in the absense of evidence, this is an illogical position. You have no evidence contrary to the ideas of radioactive decay. Your position is illogical.

Not circular assumption. Only circular for those who are attempting to show that an assumption can prove itself. A wise person would not use radioactive dating in that way.

A wise person means a person who dumps logic because it doesn't agree with their foregone conclusion that the earth is young according to you, apparently. Uh-huh. What is your evidence that radioactive decay has in some way changed over time? Without it, you might as well be arguing that unicorns and dragons existed because some people want to believe they did.

I didn't really understand your point here. Originally, we were discussing the possible causes for the Cambrian explosion. Given that mutation and natural selection (broadly speaking) are the only two known forces involved in evolution, we were looking at what conditions could have impacted these two forces sufficiently to cause such an explosion. One idea was an increase in predation meant that those animals with harder body parts would be more likely to survive, given that e.g. a shell is better protection than a scale, and the shell would also be more likely to be preserved in a fossil form, giving the impression that there was an explosion, but which was really only an explosion of life forms more likely to provide fossils. That is an explanation that I cannot rule out, but neither can I see much evidence for. Particularly as I haven't read anywhere that the Cambrian fossils are more from hard bodied animals than otherwise.

That's not the point. You are arguing that the Cambrian explosion has no reasonable explanation and you've been offered several that you admit you cannot address. In fact, mine you didn't even try to address.

I was saying that the explosion would contradictory to evolution if it were to look coordinated. That's the point. Unless you say that God caused the explosion, which wouldn't be very naturalistic of you.

It doesn't look coordinated though. You didn't say were it to appear, you said the explosion happened as if coordinated. And I believe God created the entire shebang, I'm not a naturalist. I think your naturalist BS is just more of the Creationist propaganda about the evil scientists distorting the truth to destroy your religion. Science addresses evidence. It doesn't say that interference by God is impossible, it simply doesn't account for it. Scientists very frequently believe in miracles, God, the divinity of Christ and the rold of both God and Christ in the world. Not very naturalist, now is it?

Meanwhile, you fail to explain how a flood would make it coordinated. It wouldn't. A global flood could still be a perfectly natural occurance assuming it were possible (which you claim it is). You are just reaching anywhere that supports your view of the world no matter how contradictory your positions are. Hmmmmm... what would that make you? Oh, a Creationist.

I don't see the environment driving anything.

Then you don't understand evolution at all.

But we were talking about the Cambrian explosion and its causes, not individual species.

Yes, and since you don't see the environment as a related factor in evolution, then I believe the conversation is done. You appear to not understand evolution at all.

The point is that if mutation becomes more frequent even in most of them were unsuccessful or benign, you would still see an increase in the number of species in 'short' time because of the abilty of species to diversify. Of course, the deciding factor would be whether the environment could support that diversity.

But a rain of fecal pellets might help the sea creatures, but it could hardly help the land creatures. Thus invoking a rain of fecal pellets doesn't explain the Cambrian explosion.

False. This requires you to isolate sea life from land life which isn't an accurate model. An increase in types of sea life would encourage an increase in the number of species that are suited to hunt that sea life both on land and in the sea. Unless you're arguing that there are no land animals that eat fish. Unless your arguing that there are no illnesses in the ocean that can transfer to land animals. Unless you are arguing there are no amphibious animals. Unless you are arguing there are no animals that begin their life in the sea and then spend there adulthood on land or vice versa. Unless you're simply ignoring basically everything we know about biology.

I thought I did. The original call was that there was somehow a high concentration of phosphate in the shallow areas of the ocean, or something to that effect. I wanted to know how, since there probably wasn't any megacities around back then.

Uh-huh. Did megacities invent phosphates? I guess they must have since that's the only explanation. Oh, I'm sorry, there is still magic, right? Ridiculous.

Fossils are the mineralised remains of dead animals. Thus fossils depend on death of the animal. A flood would provide a rapid way of burying all animals, both those that lived in the water and on the land. Rapid burial is necessary, because dead fish don't sink. Since many of the fossils, if not most, are from the sea creatures, we would need some sort of rapid movement of earth to cover those sea creatures while they were still alive, before they had a chance to float.

Fossils are created a number of ways. Water is a terrible way to create fossils as there are often much more to help decomposition in the water than in the air. Ever seen the difference between a body that is in a lake for three days or in a house? Unless the flood occurred like a tidal wave, which you have no evidence for, even in the Bible, you really have no support for an event that was dramatic enough to create a higher percentage of fossils as you claim. Even in a tidal wave, we don't often have the proper conditions for fossilization.

Now, if God created the world and all the species, it may be that such a flood wiped out most of the species. The ones that survived are a bare minority. So a great devastation could easily explain the Cambrian explosion. It wasn't that evolution suddenly produced more variety of life forms, but that the variety that was already there (i.e.,created) was suddenly reduced because of a great catastrophe.

Really? What part of the bible supports such a thing? You're not even staying consistent with your own religion.

And again, more proof that you're not actually taking a scientific approach. You are taking whatever approach supports your predetermined beliefs and ignoring anything that counters it. Start with an assumption, dismiss all evidence contrary to that assumption, say it complies with scripture even if it doesn't and a Creationist is born.

I can't really offer you evidence, only reasons. But by the way, how can we test the old ages that we get from rocks. Radioactive dating hasn't been around that long, and humans haven't been around much longer. There is no way to test radioactive dating really works, except by using negatives, e.g., rocks that were known to form in the last decade or so. But a bunch of negatives does not test the accuracy of the method. It only tells us how it works with negatives.

We know the ages of things that are thousands of years old. Then we extrapolate. You want us to assume that before the available evidence the world somehow worked differrently, then you're going to have to offer evidence. It's certainly possible that gravity didn't exist until 10000 years ago, but in the absense of evidence to the contrary, I'm going to have to go with the idea that gravity has always worked the same way as today since no test has ever revealed it working differently. That's called logic. Something you appear to wish for us to forego.

I don't know any unbiased sources. Do you? I have read that if the earth was perfectly spherical, than it would be covered with something like a meter of water. That is quite a lot, wouldn't you say? I can't be bothered finding links, to be honest, otherwise it might take me all night to find the jolly stuff.

Ah, so you're making a claim that is counter than anything anyone has ever seen and you know it, but you expect us to buy into it based on what? Your unerring work so far? Forgive me if I have a hard time believing the guy who said we descended from apes.

The scriptures say that the flood gates of the great deep opened up, and water gushed out. Sort of what happens when you squeeze a bottle of water. If the shape of the earth was distorted, and if there was water in the earth, it would obviously come gushing out. Depending on how violent the action, it would have caused devastating floods capable of rushing over mountains. The water would have receded once the earth gradually retained its original shape and eventually slowed down from its 'mad rush around the globe'. But I am only speculating.

Yes, but in the absense of evidence, you simply want this to be true. Is it possible? Of course, it's possible. It's also possible that Moses was a crossdresser. However, I have no evidence for either. You want to pretend your beliefs are scientific, then show some evidence. Science isn't naturalist, it simply employs evidence.

You pretend like you're being perfectly scientific, but now you admit that you're injecting your religious beliefs into science by making them the foundation of your theories though you have no observation or evidence to base them on. That's not science, that's faith. At least have the intellectual honesty to admit it.

You make it sound like spilled milk... like the 'bang' happened, and 'leaked' gravity everywhere.

Although gravity only gains 'meaning' in the INSTANT of the 'bang'... that doesn't mean that the ONLY logical concept is that 'gravity' is somehow 'generated' by the Bang, itself.

To me, it seems much MORE logical to assume that gravity is an effect that mass has on space and other mass.... thus, it 'started' at the Bang... but it wasn't strictly speaking 'created' from the Bang.

No, it's clear. He doesn't understand science at all. Trying to smash all theories together and treat them like dogma instead of individually arrived at conclusions is the type of intellectual dishonesty that passes for debate with Creationists. The same intellectual dishonesty that argues that apes and hominids are the same thing. The same intellectual dishonesty that claims they are actually trying to take a scientific approach to their theories rather than simply mask them in pseudoscience and hope that some people are uneducated enough to know the difference.

Our friend isn't arguing with me. He's spreading propaganda under the guise of arguing with me. He knows why he said we descended from apes. He knows why he's mashing this altogether. And he knows we'll keep seperating things out and destroying his arguments while he mashing them together and makes gross generalizations and he's just praying that people will get bored before we unveil his fake science.

This never changes. I just wonder how you justify being so dishonest while claiming to be Christian.

No, it's clear. He doesn't understand science at all. Trying to smash all theories together and treat them like dogma instead of individually arrived at conclusions is the type of intellectual dishonesty that passes for debate with Creationists. The same intellectual dishonesty that argues that apes and hominids are the same thing. The same intellectual dishonesty that claims they are actually trying to take a scientific approach to their theories rather than simply mask them in pseudoscience and hope that some people are uneducated enough to know the difference.

Our friend isn't arguing with me. He's spreading propaganda under the guise of arguing with me. He knows why he said we descended from apes. He knows why he's mashing this altogether. And he knows we'll keep seperating things out and destroying his arguments while he mashing them together and makes gross generalizations and he's just praying that people will get bored before we unveil his fake science.

This never changes. I just wonder how you justify being so dishonest while claiming to be Christian.

There is a school of thought, I have discovered, which considers every breath part of a 'war'. I live in the broad radio catchment of BJU, and thus, it is not uncommon for me to hear just such phrasing.... the 'war on sin' (curious... I find that almost identical to translation of the word 'jihad', no?), or "soldiers for Christ", etc...

To some people, I guess, every word and gesture is a shot fired in a religious war. It really doesn't matter if the WORDS are less-than-true, so long as the AIM is true... so long as 'souls are saved'.

To my mind, this kind of approach is what makes people create sites like that whole Dr Dino (I think?) fiasco... religious propoganda with a light 'science-flavoured' sauce.

For me... the problem with this approach is, it means you START with an assumption, and you search for evidence to support it... which just seems like 'bad science' to someone who 'does' science. But, it is 'unimportant' in this 'game'... because the end really does justify the means. To some.

He said that naturalism directly leads to this conclusion. Other than that, what's your point?
No, he didn't. He said it was a "forgone conclusion within naturalism." That means, in the context of this discussion, that if a person holds to this philosophy called naturalism, they will logically reach this conclusion from an examination of the research and evidence.

But that was kind of the whole point. Evidence. Data. Without the evidence you don't arrive at any conclusions.
Surely you could fill in the blanks, though?

Here's why this argument will never end: The religious population believes that they are right and will burn for eternity if they change their minds. The non-religious population believes that they are right, and base their standard of proof on what is readily available to their senses. God is apparently beyond the reach of our senses. Other than the realm of the spiritual. Two standards of proof? This is like the old apples and oranges analogy.

Eh...

Did you read the post you quoted W? :confused:

I asked why you agree that a single common ancestry is a foregone conclusion, for naturalism/determinism. I didn't equate the two philosophies.

I did understand that you believe determinism have something to do with your belief that a single common ancestry is a foregone conclusion in naturalist pholosophy. Thus the "Even if the two were regarded as one & the same ... ".
If you mean the post about "the naturalists' outlook on life was dominated by determinism..." yes, I read it. And neither is that author equating them.

But I did answer the question about how the conclusion is "foregone within that philosophy", i.e. for a person who holds to that philosophy.

No, he didn't. He said it was a "forgone conclusion within naturalism." That means, in the context of this discussion, that if a person holds to this philosophy called naturalism, they will logically reach this conclusion from an examination of the research and evidence.

They may logically reach this conclusion, if the evidence points to this conclusion. The evidence itself is not part of the the philosophy.

Imagine we had different evidence. Then we would most likely come to different conclusions, but would still be "within" naturalism.

Surely you could fill in the blanks, though?

Sorry, but you lost me here... :confused:

Ok Willamena, forget about it. I just took your "foregone conclusion" thing litterally. I had no idea it meant "conclusion reached after critical examination of available evidence".

Semantics...

They may logically reach this conclusion, if the evidence points to this conclusion. The evidence itself is not part of the the philosophy.
Well, that's a foregone conclusion, too. Another blank that we should be able to fill in, knowing logic as we do.

Imagine we had different evidence. Then we would most likely come to different conclusions, but would still be "within" naturalism.
But the scenario that we are working with is: examining the evidence of such-and-such research into some particular topic, the naturalist would come to this particular conclusion that would be a conclusion about the natural world. Bruarong is claiming this naturalist would come to a conclusion about the natural world because he holds a naturalist philosophy, which is a logical statement. The philosophy does not hold the means by which he reaches a particular conclusion, only that it limits the conclusion to being about the natural world.

The single common ancestor is an example of such a conclusion about the natural world. It is a conclusion both the scientist and the naturalist would arrive at, not because naturalism holds within it some means of determining this particular conclusion on this particular subject, but because it is a solution about the natural world, in contrast to a supernatural solution.

Ok Willamena, forget about it. I just took your "foregone conclusion" thing litterally. I had no idea it meant "conclusion reached after critical examination of available evidence".

Semantics...
I'm sorry, too. It was taken out of context, and I've been trying to restore a bit of the context so it makes sense again.

There is a school of thought, I have discovered, which considers every breath part of a 'war'. I live in the broad radio catchment of BJU, and thus, it is not uncommon for me to hear just such phrasing.... the 'war on sin' (curious... I find that almost identical to translation of the word 'jihad', no?), or "soldiers for Christ", etc...

To some people, I guess, every word and gesture is a shot fired in a religious war. It really doesn't matter if the WORDS are less-than-true, so long as the AIM is true... so long as 'souls are saved'.

To my mind, this kind of approach is what makes people create sites like that whole Dr Dino (I think?) fiasco... religious propoganda with a light 'science-flavoured' sauce.

For me... the problem with this approach is, it means you START with an assumption, and you search for evidence to support it... which just seems like 'bad science' to someone who 'does' science. But, it is 'unimportant' in this 'game'... because the end really does justify the means. To some.

The funny part is that we're looking at this issue from both sides. You're offended as a logical being that doesn't believe in the foundation of Christianity and I'm offended as a logical being that does. The funny part is these same lazy debaters that aren't willing to do the logical legwork it takes to make an honest argument will accuse me of not being a 'real' Christian for not being willing to lie simply to pretend I'm right.

You make it sound like spilled milk... like the 'bang' happened, and 'leaked' gravity everywhere.

Leaking milk, hehe, good one, Grave. Now I know that you cannot possible blame me for putting an image of spilt milk in your head. More likely you have been drinking too much milk at your computer.


Although gravity only gains 'meaning' in the INSTANT of the 'bang'... that doesn't mean that the ONLY logical concept is that 'gravity' is somehow 'generated' by the Bang, itself.

If the big bang did not create the force of gravity, what other source would you suggest? The way I thought of it was that the big bang created matter and anti-matter, and the properties of matter was that it contained such forces as gravity. Thus, one could say that a big bang was the creating source of the force of gravity, because it produced the matter with the force. (This sounds like starwars)


To me, it seems much MORE logical to assume that gravity is an effect that mass has on space and other mass.... thus, it 'started' at the Bang... but it wasn't strictly speaking 'created' from the Bang.

I'm not sure that matter has any effect on space. Do we know that? I thought it was an interaction between matter, and I didn't know space was considered matter also.

OK, so gravity started at the big bang, but if wasn't created by the big bang, then where did it come from?

Edit: Would you say that matter created gravity?

Can, perhaps, but does God do so? Last I checked, there weren't any raped girls about to be executed that disappeared by the divine hand of God. Now, God might have moved protestors to organize, or leaders to soften their policies, or any number of things, but these would appear perfectly natural to any outside observer.


My understanding of God is that he is capable of using either a miracle or a 'perfectly natural' method of rescuing girls in that situation. It probably seems to most modern Christians that he prefers to use natural means rather than miracles. While I believe I have seen the hand of God working today through natural means, I have read about miracles occurring today. The writers of the Bible certainly believed that God worked miracles. Why wouldn't he do them today also?


Your assumption is not falsifiable. Theirs is, and there are, indeed, people trying to falsify it all the time. It was through attempts at falsification that it first became theory.


I don't understand you Dem. You can see my assumptions, but you cannot see that any explanation or conclusion involving the history of life on earth also has to involve assumptions. How would you falsify the idea that only natural forces can account for life and its variety on earth?


What you "like to think" is irrelevant. A scientific theory cannot be based in a non-falsifiable assumption.


As a part of the science community, what I think is relevant because the community consists of individuals.

All scientific theories are based on non-falsifyable assumptions, including the assumption that the universe contains enough consistency and order to allow a sensible investigation.


This is patently incorrect. Most radioactive dating techniques assume that the beginning ratio is the same as the ratio in objects at the surface today. For instance, there is a fairly constant ration of C12-C14 in organic material which is constantly being turned over. When said material dies, turnover ceases and decay can begin. The assumption made in using this isotope for dating is not that you start out with 100% C14, but that you start out with the same ratio that we see in all organic material. This certainly allows room for error, as there may have been more or less of any given radioactive material present in your average material at a certain time, but we have seen it to be constant since measurements have begun. If, 1000 years from now, we have measured a trend that changes these estimations, they will be changed.


I don't disagree with you. That was a mistake from me. The assumption isn't that the decay began with 100% of the parent element, but that the level of decay is determined from the levels of parent and daughter elements within a rock compared with the levels of parent and daughter elements in todays surroundings. Once that is done, then the level of parent element is 'set' to 100% and the level of daughter element is used to calculate ages. If the calculated (corrected) level of daughter element is 50% compared to the parent element (after the point at which the rock was sealed from the outside environment), then the age of the rock seal is apparently the same as the half life of the parent element.
My point was that while rate of decay is relatively well known, what many people don't realize is that the numbers generated are used together with assumptions to calculate age. The numbers generated are not numbers of years.


Three are these crazy things called exponentials. You don't have to be at or near half-decayed in order to measure radioactive decay. Of course, rubidium decay would be a rather unlikely choice to use as the definitive method for something that was only giving us a thousand-year age. If that is what was measured, then we would most likely move to carbon dating, or some other method which is accurate within a few thousand years.


Of course carbon dating would be a better choice for objects thought to be more recent. But my point was that when trying to date a rock that one thinks is old via something like the rubidium method, he could get all sorts of figures that are completely wrong if he is incorrect. If the rock is really a young rock, his figures may not tell him so.

The interesting thing about carbon dating is that I have read about possible changes in the levels of carbon13 in our environment. It may be related to the changes in the earth's magnetic field. If only I could find that link......


And this is the problem. You interject your religion into a theory, and then try to make claims about that theory based on your interjection of your religion.


It is impossible for a truly religious person to do anything that is unrelated to his religion. The same goes for anyone who has a world view. For example, your acceptance of some of the naturalistic thinking within science has an effect on your religious views. Your view of God is affected by the idea that he would use death (a part of natural selection) to 'create' humans from animals. But the scriptures say that death is the last enemy. (Incidentally, why would God use death to make a world that He thought was good--red in tooth and claw?)

I do not try to interject my religion into my science. I simply cannot keep them apart. Everything I do is related to my religion. Everything a person does is related to his world view. A person is capable of believing in God, and yet believing that science may only invoke natural causes to explain how life and all its variety got here. But that doesn't really work, because somewhere along the line, unless he thinks God exists only in the supernatural and cannot interact with the natural world, he has to come clean about allowing God some role in the development of the material world. Perhaps I should ask you what you think is God's contribution to the material world. A big bang?` That wouldn't be very 'scientific' of you, would it?


And you fail to see that those "underlying" assumptions are previous conclusions. Thus, they aren't really "underlying" assumptions. They are no different than the scientists who assumed that Newton's Laws were correct once they had been backed up enough, and continued to use it until evidence that was contradictory was found.


I don't fail to see this. I think it a smaller detail that is not really relevant to my point. One cannot claim that science is built only on conclusions. Somewhere along the line there has to be an assumption, an initial one. This is what I have been getting at, and apparently what you have not been seeing.


Meanwhile, if naturalism is the idea that there is no God or that God doesn't interfere, or whatever you wish to imply, why is it that most scientists have no problem reconciling their religion, which often has a God that interferes in everyday life all the time, with their science? Could it be that they simply don't use God as an underlying assumption for a given explanation?

I doubt that it is most scientists. Perhaps in the US, I don't know. But my experience there told me that there were more atheists and agnostics than Christians among the scientists, and that was at your biggest university in Austin, Texas.

A scientist is capable of holding both naturalism and God in his head, of course. But it will not be a strict version of naturalism, unless he takes Darwin's position (which eventually became agnostic). Most of the scientists don't really bother to think the issue through for themselves, or at least that is what they often say when I question them about it. Of course they are capable of good science, no question about that. But they are often in that uncomfortable position of being neither naturalists nor believing in the scriptures. If they accept that Bible as God's word, they usually accept parts of it, but do not trust the whole.

Wasn't it just prophets that did miracles?

I'd hardly call, for instance, Sodom and Ghemorrah or Lot's wife a miracle. On the other hand, Moses' stick turning into a snake, that was cool.

Bruarong the problem is you wish to include something in science that you cannot falsify. The mysterious way God acts, simply defies explanation.
Further, you're unwilling to abandon the concept, though you have no support for it. That means you're not talking science, but philosophy or fantasy.

What you propose, is no different from me proposing that Einstein's formula should read E=mc2+immaterial watermelons & a deflated balloon.

It isn't science.How would you falsify the idea that only natural forces can account for life and its variety on earth?It is besides the point. You can debate whether it's possible all you want. No-one's stopping you. But if you wish to use the scientific method, you have to accept the assumption that everything in our universe is the result of processes within the universe.

No-one's saying that assumption is correct. It seems plausible that it is, but that's the extend of it. We might all be thoughts in the Star Goat's head, in which case the assumption would definitively be wrong.
But if you wish to employ the scientific method, you have to go by that assumption. Otherwise the method doesn't work.

But again, no-one's forcing you to believe that assumption is correct, or to use the scientific method. It is, however, handy to accept the assumption most (if not all) of the time, because it does yield useful results that makes life easier & a lot more fun.

I too would like the assumption to be wrong. Unlike you though, I accept that 300ft hyper-intelligent space pirate squirrels probably aren't around, and that the Norse pantheon probably don't have a Valhalla waiting for me somewhere. It would be damn kult though.

Bruarong the problem is you wish to include something in science that you cannot falsify. The mysterious way God acts, simply defies explanation.

The problem isn't that I want to include something in science than cannot be falsified, but that the something that I want to include is something that you don't like. It doesn't require that we know God, or his mysterious ways, only that we allow that he may have interfered and let the data lead us to the most logical conclusion.



Further, you're unwilling to abandon the concept, though you have no support for it. That means you're not talking science, but philosophy or fantasy.

Most of this discussion has been at the level of philosophy, which is possibly why someone like Willamena who is not a scientist (to my knowledge) is fully capable of engaging in the discussion. I'm not really willing to abandon the concept simply because I am possibly the only one here supporting it. I would rather do so on the basis of good solid reasons that have nothing to do with how educated or intelligent others claim that I am. The labelling of my views as propaganda or some such thing has done nothing to help me see reason on your side of the argument.

Instead of thinking that I must be stupid or ignorant for disagreeing with you, why don't you look for the good in what I say? You simply can't go around your whole life thinking that people who disagree with your point of view are stupid. Or perhaps you can, but that is not a good way to learn more about the world.


What you propose, is no different from me proposing that Einstein's formula should read E=mc2+immaterial watermelons & a deflated balloon.

I can't see that. I'm not disagreeing with Einstein's formula, as far as I know. I simply propose that any view that a person holds should be supportable by reason and evidence (as opposed to ridicule).


It isn't science.It is besides the point. You can debate whether it's possible all you want. No-one's stopping you. But if you wish to use the scientific method, you have to accept the assumption that everything in our universe is the result of processes within the universe.

Perhaps it isn't your definition of science, but I'm not really that interesting in conforming to your definition of science. I can use the scientific method very nicely, thank you, without your notions of what it should or shouldn't be.


No-one's saying that assumption is correct. It seems plausible that it is, but that's the extend of it. We might all be thoughts in the Star Goat's head, in which case the assumption would definitively be wrong.

I'm not saying that assumptions are wrong. They are, in fact, a very necessary part of reasoning. I just don't want to have your assumptions.


But if you wish to employ the scientific method, you have to go by that assumption. Otherwise the method doesn't work.

You mean that all of the discoveries about the scientific world before the rise of naturalism were not really science. If that is the way you see it, then I am quite comfortable with the idea that my science is not your science, and that I can happily go about discovering more about the world without using your science.


But again, no-one's forcing you to believe that assumption is correct, or to use the scientific method. It is, however, handy to accept the assumption most (if not all) of the time, because it does yield useful results that makes life easier & a lot more fun.

I think you are assuming that discovery of the material world is impossible without your version of the scientific method. I reckon I could have just as much fun without your version, and I even think it would reveal just as much results.


I too would like the assumption to be wrong. Unlike you though, I accept that 300ft hyper-intelligent space pirate squirrels probably aren't around, and that the Norse pantheon probably don't have a Valhalla waiting for me somewhere. It would be damn kult though.

Are you saying that what I believe is rubbish. Fine, but that doesn't make your argument sound better. It's the same approach of calling me stupid because I don't agree with your point of view. Using ridicule to support your view point isn't all that reasonable.

Wasn't it just prophets that did miracles?

I'd hardly call, for instance, Sodom and Ghemorrah or Lot's wife a miracle. On the other hand, Moses' stick turning into a snake, that was cool.

I have been rather general in my use of the term 'miracle'. God raising Jesus from the dead was one miracle, and Moses with the stick turning into a snake was another. So was the great flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. They were 'unpleasant' events, but miracles in the sense that God was interfering with the natural world, and the laws of nature were temporarily suspended.

The prophets were never the source of the power for the miracles, but the 'vessels' through which the power of God flowed. Perhaps that is why, in many cases, the scriptures do not distinguish between a miracle worked by a prophet or that worked by God. The nature of a prophet was that every miracle he worked was in the name of his god, and therefore the power was not his own.

The problem isn't that I want to include something in science than cannot be falsified, but that the something that I want to include is something that you don't like.Nope. My likes & dislikes have nothing to do with the scientific method.It doesn't require that we know God, or his mysterious ways, only that we allow that he may have interfered and let the data lead us to the most logical conclusion.If you allow God to interfere with the object of your science, you must be able to account for how God goes about doing it. Since God is a supernatural entity, you can't do that with the scientific method.

That is what I was pointing out in my previous post.I'm not really willing to abandon the concept simply because I am possibly the only one here supporting it. I would rather do so on the basis of good solid reasons that have nothing to do with how educated or intelligent others claim that I am. Whether or not you're alone with your point of view doesn't matter. You claim that you can apply the scientific method, to something that falls beyond the scope of the basic assumption of that method. It is a contradiction in terms.
I have absolutely no clue why you won't admit this. You're obviously a reasonably clever & knowledgeable person, so I have a hard time believing you can't understand it.The labelling of my views as propaganda or some such thing has done nothing to help me see reason on your side of the argument.

Instead of thinking that I must be stupid or ignorant for disagreeing with you, why don't you look for the good in what I say? You simply can't go around your whole life thinking that people who disagree with your point of view are stupid. Or perhaps you can, but that is not a good way to learn more about the world.I had no idea I was guilty of calling you stupid, ignorant, or accusing you of spreading propaganda.. Or anything else along those lines.

You're arguing that you can use the scientific method to determine supernatural phenomena or results of supernatural phenomena. That is self-evidently wrong.I can't see that. I'm not disagreeing with Einstein's formula, as far as I know.OK. I see it was poor judgement on my part, to use an analogy to describe the absurdity of your argument.

The point I was trying to make, is that immaterial watermelons could conceivably be part of that equation, but the scientific method can't be used to determine that - because an immaterial watermelon is a supernatural "thing".I simply propose that any view that a person holds should be supportable by reason and evidence (as opposed to ridicule).The problem is that supernatural evidence isn't evidence at all, and can't be examined using the scientific method - because it is supernatural.

It is the logical property of something supernatural.Perhaps it isn't your definition of science, but I'm not really that interesting in conforming to your definition of science. I can use the scientific method very nicely, thank you, without your notions of what it should or shouldn't be.I didn't invent the methodology, but I'll take that as a compliment, thank you.

Personal interpretations have nothing to do with anything. The scientific method, and the full scope of what it can be applied to, is clearly defined.

You are free to disregard parts of the methodology, or attempt to apply it to things is isn't intended for, but in doing so, you stop using the full methodology, and should acknowledge that. There's nothing wrong with it, and we humans do it all the time. It just can't be called hard science.I'm not saying that assumptions are wrong. They are, in fact, a very necessary part of reasoning. I just don't want to have your assumptions.It isn't my assumption. I doubt it can be attributed to anyone in particular. The method just on the basis of it. If & when it doesn't, it isn't the "scientific method" anymore, but something else. Not that there's anything wrong with that.You mean that all of the discoveries about the scientific world before the rise of naturalism were not really science. If that is the way you see it, then I am quite comfortable with the idea that my science is not your science, and that I can happily go about discovering more about the world without using your science.That is your very own extraordinary interpretation of what I said. It is absolutely not my view of things.

Para-psychology can be highly scientific. It just isn't a hard science, and its basis isn't the scientific method. It neither makes it wrong or useless though.I think you are assuming that discovery of the material world is impossible without your version of the scientific method. I reckon I could have just as much fun without your version, and I even think it would reveal just as much results.I think it's about time you define the scientific method.
Incidentally, I'm wondering if you have some fundamental problem with reading my posts. Going on a ride in an amusement park could potentially be a lethal experience, if not for our use of the scientific method. That, and things like that, was what I meant, when I said the world is more fun when you accept the basic assumption from time to time.

I didn't mean you should abandon your faith in God or anything else of the sort, nor did I write anything to that effect.Are you saying that what I believe is rubbish. Fine, but that doesn't make your argument sound better. It's the same approach of calling me stupid because I don't agree with your point of view. Using ridicule to support your view point isn't all that reasonable.I wasn't trying to ridicule your point of view. On the contrary, I sincerely believe it would be brilliant to live in a universe with Norse Gods & space squirrels. But thank you for ridiculing my beliefs & consistently implying I'm stupid, you obnoxious git.

You are arguing against an established definition, not my personal opinion. It isn't much different from arguing that the word "round" not only describes circular objects, but also die-shaped ones.

All I've done is trying to let you know that isn't the case.

Leaking milk, hehe, good one, Grave. Now I know that you cannot possible blame me for putting an image of spilt milk in your head. More likely you have been drinking too much milk at your computer.


Most likely, chocolate milk, actually. :)


If the big bang did not create the force of gravity, what other source would you suggest? The way I thought of it was that the big bang created matter and anti-matter, and the properties of matter was that it contained such forces as gravity. Thus, one could say that a big bang was the creating source of the force of gravity, because it produced the matter with the force. (This sounds like starwars)


I don't 'get' the concept of matter 'containing' forces... matter is not a 'jack in the box' packed to the brim with special effects.

Was the Big Bang, in this theory, the 'creating force' of gravity? Only at a remove... I'd say it created the 'stuff' that made gravity 'meaningful'.


I'm not sure that matter has any effect on space. Do we know that? I thought it was an interaction between matter, and I didn't know space was considered matter also.

OK, so gravity started at the big bang, but if wasn't created by the big bang, then where did it come from?

Edit: Would you say that matter created gravity?

I'm not necessarily implying that gravity 'sucks space' or anything... my reference to gravity being an 'effect' on space and mass, is rather more about the interactions between the masses, and the permeation of the spaces between.

Would I say 'matter created gravity'? Sure... if it pays well.

But, to be a little less flippant.... no - because of two separate considerations:

1) Gravity might have existed LONG before the Big Bang (except for the whole 'meaningless time' concept before the Bang)... but it would have had nothing to cause effects ON, or to be polarised/focused BY. It would have been meaningless... a concept without an application.

2) Did 'matter create gravity'? No... I'd say that gravity is something that 'happens' BECAUSE of mass... or that 'gains MEANING' because of mass. The Earth isn't floating in it's orbit 'making' gravity, but it IS contributing to gravitic effects, and being influenced BY them.

Most likely, chocolate milk, actually. :)



I don't 'get' the concept of matter 'containing' forces... matter is not a 'jack in the box' packed to the brim with special effects.

Was the Big Bang, in this theory, the 'creating force' of gravity? Only at a remove... I'd say it created the 'stuff' that made gravity 'meaningful'.



I'm not necessarily implying that gravity 'sucks space' or anything... my reference to gravity being an 'effect' on space and mass, is rather more about the interactions between the masses, and the permeation of the spaces between.

Would I say 'matter created gravity'? Sure... if it pays well.

But, to be a little less flippant.... no - because of two separate considerations:

1) Gravity might have existed LONG before the Big Bang (except for the whole 'meaningless time' concept before the Bang)... but it would have had nothing to cause effects ON, or to be polarised/focused BY. It would have been meaningless... a concept without an application.

2) Did 'matter create gravity'? No... I'd say that gravity is something that 'happens' BECAUSE of mass... or that 'gains MEANING' because of mass. The Earth isn't floating in it's orbit 'making' gravity, but it IS contributing to gravitic effects, and being influenced BY them.

Hey, Grave, did you know the Big Bang created the morality laws for Man. It's true. The Bible is a biproduct of the Big Bang. Thus, you cannot talk about the Bible without first accepting the Big Bang to be true. Exactly like you can't accept evolution with having to argue about abiogenesis.

WHAT?!?! What do you mean the Big Bang never happened? Don't you believe in the Bible? Where did the Bible come from if not from the Big Bang?

Hey, Grave, did you know the Big Bang created the morality laws for Man. It's true. The Bible is a biproduct of the Big Bang. Thus, you cannot talk about the Bible without first accepting the Big Bang to be true. Exactly like you can't accept evolution with having to argue about abiogenesis.

WHAT?!?! What do you mean the Big Bang never happened? Don't you believe in the Bible? Where did the Bible come from if not from the Big Bang?

Morning, friend. :) Not seeing you so much on here at the moment... all well, I hope?

You make an excellent point... there is an inability or unwillingness to view as separate, things that are separate.

Now - obviously, in the Bible... since it claims to be divinely ordained, and brooks no interrogation... there is but one explanation for every single thing... the first 'Unified Theory', perhaps.... except that it really doesn't work as a theory.

Unfortunately, SOME people see that kind of approach, and can not, or will not, allow for any other approach. Instead, they replace the word 'god', with the word 'nature', and expect it to be another 'religion'.

So - if God made the world, and everything in it, then the other 'religion' must say that 'nature' made the world and everything in it. It is viewed as an exact parallel. Such a perspective is, of course, entirely unscientific... because it assumes one 'governing' force or entity, and expects a kind of 'coherency' akin to Biblical scripture.

The irony is that the average Christian can accept that a detail of scripture COULD be proved to be conflicted, or even untrue.... WITHOUT it meaning that 'God doesn't exist'. And yet, that same mindset means that they see a perceived 'gap' in, say, evolutionary theory, as the death knell for the entire field of scientific endeavours.

I find it very hard to believe that there can REALLY be anyone who takes all scripture literally, AND can honestly practise science. You can't serve two masters, I've heard.... and blind faith seems to me, to be a trait that would logically be exclusive of true application of the Scientific Method.

I don't understand you Dem. You can see my assumptions, but you cannot see that any explanation or conclusion involving the history of life on earth also has to involve assumptions. How would you falsify the idea that only natural forces can account for life and its variety on earth?

Here's the thing - the concept is not that ONLY natural forces can account for it, but instead that we can only examine the natural forces that were involved. You can't see the difference and that is why you're not a scientist.[

As a part of the science community, what I think is relevant because the community consists of individuals.

All scientific theories are based on non-falsifyable assumptions, including the assumption that the universe contains enough consistency and order to allow a sensible investigation.

Yes, that assumption is made because minus that assumption you might as well walk outside every day expecting to go flying up in the air. You make the same assumption to say that you don't is simply lying.

I don't disagree with you. That was a mistake from me. The assumption isn't that the decay began with 100% of the parent element, but that the level of decay is determined from the levels of parent and daughter elements within a rock compared with the levels of parent and daughter elements in todays surroundings. Once that is done, then the level of parent element is 'set' to 100% and the level of daughter element is used to calculate ages. If the calculated (corrected) level of daughter element is 50% compared to the parent element (after the point at which the rock was sealed from the outside environment), then the age of the rock seal is apparently the same as the half life of the parent element.
My point was that while rate of decay is relatively well known, what many people don't realize is that the numbers generated are used together with assumptions to calculate age. The numbers generated are not numbers of years.

Pardon? The numbers generated are the delta of time between now and the time that the particular item formed.

Of course carbon dating would be a better choice for objects thought to be more recent. But my point was that when trying to date a rock that one thinks is old via something like the rubidium method, he could get all sorts of figures that are completely wrong if he is incorrect. If the rock is really a young rock, his figures may not tell him so.

Which would be a point if they didn't examine things with multiple methods. If an object appears young by a method meant for older objects or even relatively young it is rechecked to make sure that a more accurate age cannot be achieved. You act is if it's a bad thing that they take multiple paths to make sure they all lead to the same conclusion. Although, given that you only accept one source, admit it can be interpreted different ways, and then throw out any evidence that disagrees with your way of interpreting it, I can see how you consider injecting various supports as a bad thing. It certainly isn't something you practice.

The interesting thing about carbon dating is that I have read about possible changes in the levels of carbon13 in our environment. It may be related to the changes in the earth's magnetic field. If only I could find that link......

Uh-huh. Possible is no good if there is no evidence. Speculation is only useful if it is supported. I read something about a person who flew to the heavens on a unicorn. If only I could find that link...

It is impossible for a truly religious person to do anything that is unrelated to his religion. The same goes for anyone who has a world view. For example, your acceptance of some of the naturalistic thinking within science has an effect on your religious views. Your view of God is affected by the idea that he would use death (a part of natural selection) to 'create' humans from animals. But the scriptures say that death is the last enemy. (Incidentally, why would God use death to make a world that He thought was good--red in tooth and claw?)

There is no naturalistic thinking within science. Your repetition of that lie does not make it true. Propaganda. I practice science and I accept no form of naturalistic thinking. God is responsible for everything that goes on in the universe. God planned it all out. Just because you don't have enough faith to believe that God could have created a universe that would do exactly as he willed without his direct interference doesn't mean we have to. I believe the evolution of man was the plan of God. If we found evidence that the earth stopped for a day and a natural explanation for how it occurred, I wouldn't consider that proof that God didn't have a hand in it, but proof that God didn't want to destroy the need for faith.

I do not try to interject my religion into my science. I simply cannot keep them apart. Everything I do is related to my religion. Everything a person does is related to his world view. A person is capable of believing in God, and yet believing that science may only invoke natural causes to explain how life and all its variety got here. But that doesn't really work, because somewhere along the line, unless he thinks God exists only in the supernatural and cannot interact with the natural world, he has to come clean about allowing God some role in the development of the material world. Perhaps I should ask you what you think is God's contribution to the material world. A big bang?` That wouldn't be very 'scientific' of you, would it?

And you do both your science and your religion a disservice if you don't recognize that they have very different purposes.

Dude, you know nothing about science. I believe that God was the cause of the Big Bang and many of my compatriots most of whom have PhD's believe the same thing. There is nothing unscientific about accepting that God may have a hand in the world so long as you don't expect that concept to play into your scientific methods, hypotheses or conclusions.

I don't fail to see this. I think it a smaller detail that is not really relevant to my point. One cannot claim that science is built only on conclusions. Somewhere along the line there has to be an assumption, an initial one. This is what I have been getting at, and apparently what you have not been seeing.

No, the problem is that your assumption is flawed. This is what you have not been seeing.

I doubt that it is most scientists. Perhaps in the US, I don't know. But my experience there told me that there were more atheists and agnostics than Christians among the scientists, and that was at your biggest university in Austin, Texas.

I quite simply don't believe you. I've never been anywhere in the US where atheism was more prevelant than Christianity and Texas is certainly not the first place I'd look for such a phenomena. What's next? Kansas is mostly Muslim?

Being a scientist has no effect on whether one believes in God. NONE. I challenge you find evidence otherwise. Your claims are just more propaganda.

A scientist is capable of holding both naturalism and God in his head, of course. But it will not be a strict version of naturalism, unless he takes Darwin's position (which eventually became agnostic). Most of the scientists don't really bother to think the issue through for themselves, or at least that is what they often say when I question them about it. Of course they are capable of good science, no question about that. But they are often in that uncomfortable position of being neither naturalists nor believing in the scriptures. If they accept that Bible as God's word, they usually accept parts of it, but do not trust the whole.

Wait, most scientists don't bother to think about the issue now? Again, I call bs. Wait, now most of them are not naturalists? Make up your mind.

Now, let's talk about accepting the whole. Easy question, do you accept the WHOLE of the Bible to be the word of God, literally?

The problem isn't that I want to include something in science than cannot be falsified, but that the something that I want to include is something that you don't like. It doesn't require that we know God, or his mysterious ways, only that we allow that he may have interfered and let the data lead us to the most logical conclusion.
But how is that revealed in the data? The data, which is of the natural world, will always indicate a natural cause and a natural outcome in addition to whatever else you wish to "allow".

But how is that revealed in the data? The data, which is of the natural world, will always indicate a natural cause and a natural outcome in addition to whatever else you wish to "allow".

Yes, exactly. They aren't only allowing for a natural explanation, it's simply the one they are limited to examining. When someone shows how it would be possible for science to examine the properties of God using emperical evidence, I'm certain that would win a Nobel prize.

Here's the thing - the concept is not that ONLY natural forces can account for it, but instead that we can only examine the natural forces that were involved. You can't see the difference and that is why you're not a scientist.

I agree that we can only examine natural forces with science. What I have been saying is that while we cannot use science to investigate God, we can allow that he may have e.g. created humans as humans if the evidence points that way. While we examine only natural causes and effects, we need not force ourselves to look for one if we don't think it exists.
I don't really care whether you think I am a scientist or not. It doesn't really make that much difference to the debate.



Which would be a point if they didn't examine things with multiple methods. If an object appears young by a method meant for older objects or even relatively young it is rechecked to make sure that a more accurate age cannot be achieved. You act is if it's a bad thing that they take multiple paths to make sure they all lead to the same conclusion. Although, given that you only accept one source, admit it can be interpreted different ways, and then throw out any evidence that disagrees with your way of interpreting it, I can see how you consider injecting various supports as a bad thing. It certainly isn't something you practice.


Tut, tut. Insults aren't helping.
I recognise that radioactive dating relies on several methods. But when all of the methods use the same assumptions, they still do not prove that such assumptions are true.



There is no naturalistic thinking within science. Your repetition of that lie does not make it true. Propaganda.

I do believe that there is quite a lot of naturalistic thinking within science. I may be mislead, wrong, inaccurate, etc. But I would only be lying if I really thought that there was no naturalistic thinking while saying that there was. So what do you gain by calling me a liar? And how would you know? Is is a tactic of yours to bully your opponents? Why not just use reason in your arguments?



I practice science and I accept no form of naturalistic thinking. God is responsible for everything that goes on in the universe. God planned it all out.

Wow, and I wonder that you are so against what I am saying. I am only trying to allow my science to be consistent with what I believe. If I believe that God was the cause behind the universe, why should I assume that he only used natural causes? If I happened to be a scientist investigating the big bang, for example, how would I go about looking for natural causes for the big bang if I believed that God made the big bang?

I didn't realise that you practiced science. Which area?


Just because you don't have enough faith to believe that God could have created a universe that would do exactly as he willed without his direct interference doesn't mean we have to.

But somewhere along the line God had to do something, otherwise he has done nothing. Just at which point you think he did do something will always be opposed by those with the naturalistic viewpoint.

I think God could have done things the way that you suggest. I am open to that.


I believe the evolution of man was the plan of God. If we found evidence that the earth stopped for a day and a natural explanation for how it occurred, I wouldn't consider that proof that God didn't have a hand in it, but proof that God didn't want to destroy the need for faith.

At that point, you are going against naturalism. Good for you.


And you do both your science and your religion a disservice if you don't recognize that they have very different purposes.

Of course they have different purposes, just like my eye has one purpose and my mind another. But they are still very related.


Dude, you know nothing about science.

That's is a little amusing for me, since I work in a research lab. I teach students doing their bachelors, masters and PhDs, and I write papers. My boss keeps paying me. She is a good boss.


I believe that God was the cause of the Big Bang and many of my compatriots most of whom have PhD's believe the same thing.

Fair enough. But in order to do so, you are not being naturalistic. You have allowed a supernatural cause in the material world.


There is nothing unscientific about accepting that God may have a hand in the world so long as you don't expect that concept to play into your scientific methods, hypotheses or conclusions.


Once again, if I was a big bang scientist, and I thought that God may have had a hand in the big bang, how is that going to look in a scientific journal? On the other hand, if one of my friends knew that I was investigating the big bang, and that I also believed that God caused the big bang, I would look rather silly to him for trying to search for natural causes when I really believed that there were supernatural causes.


No, the problem is that your assumption is flawed. This is what you have not been seeing.


I think you mean that my application of the assumption to scientific theory is flawed. The actual assumption of God's existence is not flawed, would you say?


I quite simply don't believe you. I've never been anywhere in the US where atheism was more prevelant than Christianity and Texas is certainly not the first place I'd look for such a phenomena. What's next? Kansas is mostly Muslim?


I never meant that atheism was more prevalent in the general community, only that it seemed to me to be more prevalent in the scientific one. Perhaps 25% of them were Chinese. At least half of them seemed to be foreigners. Anyway, forget that point. It wasn't important.


Being a scientist has no effect on whether one believes in God. NONE. I challenge you find evidence otherwise. Your claims are just more propaganda.


But I have never claimed that being a scientist will mean that one does not believe in God. I am a scientist and I believe in God.


Wait, most scientists don't bother to think about the issue now? Again, I call bs. Wait, now most of them are not naturalists? Make up your mind.

Most of the ones that believe in God are not strict naturalists, but are convinced that it is unscientific to allow God as a cause in their particular field of research. So they allow God as a cause in some other area of research. It is quite common to hear about a biologist who believes that God created the first life form (because chemistry is not his area), or a chemist who believes that God caused the big bang (because physics is not his area). It isn't that they have not bothered to think about it, but I get the impression that many of them don't bother to think things through. At least that is what I find when I talk to them. It could be that they feel uncomfortable talking about them, and rather keep their thoughts to themselves.


Now, let's talk about accepting the whole. Easy question, do you accept the WHOLE of the Bible to be the word of God, literally?

I accept it to be the word of God, yes, but there is always the issue over what is literal and what isn't. I believe the death and resurrection of Christ was literal. I believe his commandment to eat his flesh and drink his blood was not literal, as was his comments about needing to be born again. You simply cannot say that it was all meant to be taken literally. I believe the Apostle Paul's arguments about needing Jesus for salvation, etc. I do not believe that when the Bible records the wrongs of some people that it means for us to do the same wrongs. I believe the Gospel message, the one about Jesus coming to free us from all that enslaves us, and to restore us to God. I believe that Psalmists and many references all through the Bible that refer to God as the creator. I believe that God has personally called me to be his child. I know that my acceptance of that call has totally changed my life. I cannot deny the power of God to change lives, otherwise I really would be a liar. I believe that Jesus is returning one day. Did that answer your question?

Perhaps I could ask you the same question?

You are free to disregard parts of the methodology, or attempt to apply it to things is isn't intended for, but in doing so, you stop using the full methodology, and should acknowledge that. There's nothing wrong with it, and we humans do it all the time. It just can't be called hard science.
I gather that what Bruarong is arguing is not using the scientific method to directly observe a supernatural thing, but rather to use "scientific methods", in a more general sense, to indirectly deduce supernatural things. I'm still very curious about how this is done, and about these "information systems". I'm meaning to read up on it someday.

I agree that we can only examine natural forces with science. What I have been saying is that while we cannot use science to investigate God, we can allow that he may have e.g. created humans as humans if the evidence points that way. While we examine only natural causes and effects, we need not force ourselves to look for one if we don't think it exists.

See you contradict yourself right there. We do allow that He may have created humans but evidence will NEVER point towards him and to suggest otherwise is to say that we can investigate Him. The fact that you can't see this is exactly why you are unscientific. Evidence is science. Evidence can support events that may have had God involved but they will never evidence His involvement EVER. You start with the premise that events happened a certain way and ignore the evidence that disspells that view. More importantly, you don't see that disspelling your view of how the events occurred, events that God was involved in, has NOTHING to do with God Himself and nothing to do with naturalism.

I don't really care whether you think I am a scientist or not. It doesn't really make that much difference to the debate.

Yes, it does. You are attempting to have a debate about science and using your personal expertise as a foundation for that debate. Your personal expertise is fairly questionable on this subject if you don't know how seperate theories are seperate and the implactions many of these theories have had on modern science.

Tut, tut. Insults aren't helping.\

It's not an insult, it's an assessment based on evidence offered throughout the thread. You use your personal expertise as evidence then you draw our opinion of your expertise into the debate as well.

I recognise that radioactive dating relies on several methods. But when all of the methods use the same assumptions, they still do not prove that such assumptions are true.

They don't use the same assumptions. You were making an argument that the wrong type of dating is used and not verified and it denies the actual methods that are used for verification. You suggested that they would use a type of dating that has a high degree of error in younger specimens without verification and it's patently untrue. More propaganda. Now you pretend like you were talking about something else.

I do believe that there is quite a lot of naturalistic thinking within science. I may be mislead, wrong, inaccurate, etc. But I would only be lying if I really thought that there was no naturalistic thinking while saying that there was. So what do you gain by calling me a liar? And how would you know? Is is a tactic of yours to bully your opponents? Why not just use reason in your arguments?

Here's where you are right, in the bolded part, emphasis mine. There is no naturalistic thinking in science. There may be naturalistic thinking in scientists, but science is a discipline and it does not allow for an delving into the world of supernatural whatsoever. Science as a discipline does not deny the existence of God or the supernatural. It is simply incapable of examining it.

I've seen you lie in this debate. It's clear that you're doing so even if you deny it. I have nothing to gain with you, but since you are offering up false evidence I think it important that people reading this debate recognize that your 'evidence' should be taken with a grain of salt.

Evidence: Humans descended from apes according to evolution. You know this is NOT true yet you stated it several times. That's called a lie.

Meanwhile, at that point, I didn't call you a liar. I said if you say you don't hold the same assumption to be true is to say you're a liar. In fact, if you didn't hold that assumption to be true then you'd likely be in a mental hospital because you could literally believe that if I pulled the trigger of a gun, candy would come out.

Wow, and I wonder that you are so against what I am saying. I am only trying to allow my science to be consistent with what I believe. If I believe that God was the cause behind the universe, why should I assume that he only used natural causes? If I happened to be a scientist investigating the big bang, for example, how would I go about looking for natural causes for the big bang if I believed that God made the big bang?

You wouldn't it. That's the problem. If you go about science only creating tests that you will support your assumptions then you are violating the principles of science. Your test have to be designed to expand on your theories and to truly test them. If you are refusing to examine areas of science because of your beliefs then you don't belong within a discipline that requires you to do so. If I had to guess, you actually aren't in a discipline that requires you to do so.

I didn't realise that you practiced science. Which area?

It varies actually. I manage projects so I actually have to coordinate the efforts of different types of scientists and engineers. Personally, I studied computer engineering, but I didn't graduate because I spent most of my time studying chemisty, biology and physics because I thought my ECE courses were boring. However, I've been working within the field of science for more than a decade. What's your discipline?

But somewhere along the line God had to do something, otherwise he has done nothing. Just at which point you think he did do something will always be opposed by those with the naturalistic viewpoint.

If God created the whole ball of wax, I would say that's something. The Big Bang theory has the universe starting form a singularity. That singularity could very well have been created by God and set to create the universe we know today. The universe that resulted in humans as we know them. That's hardly nothing. It's also completely consistent with current scientific theory.

Also, science does not hold that miracles are impossible. It simply cannot account for them or expect them. I'd say even you don't expect miracles. I doubt you would jump off of a cliff expecting a miracle or deny your child medicine expecting a miracle. Generally, nobody even hopes for a miracle until all else fails. The point is that because science does not account for miracles or address them or acknowledge them at all, isn't a denial. It's simply not a confirmation.

I think God could have done things the way that you suggest. I am open to that.

So is science. Your claims otherwise are simply false.

At that point, you are going against naturalism. Good for you.

Again, so does science. No science paper could or would ever suggest that my position is impossible.

Of course they have different purposes, just like my eye has one purpose and my mind another. But they are still very related.

Certainly, but religion has no place in science and more than thinking has any place in my eyeball and you keep saying so and then contradicting yourself. Science cannot explore God. PERIOD. That's the end of it. You keep trying to throw a 'but' in there and it doesn't work. Science cannot explore God.

That's is a little amusing for me, since I work in a research lab. I teach students doing their bachelors, masters and PhDs, and I write papers. My boss keeps paying me. She is a good boss.

I'd say she is a good boss. If my boss didn't fire me for gross incompetence, I would consider her a great boss. I'm sure that your coworkers are particularly happy about that kind of 'greatness' however. And, yes, not understanding the very fundamentals of the discipline you work within is gross incompetence. However, to be fair, I don't actually believe you. You either don't actually do work within science or you do not try to set forth assumptions that include God or both.

I play for the Philharmonic Orchestra and I date supermodels. See how valuable claims are on the internet. I'd be interested to know how often you tell your students that there is no point in exploring a theory because your faith says, God did it.

Fair enough. But in order to do so, you are not being naturalistic. You have allowed a supernatural cause in the material world.

Yes, that's exactly the point. Science allows for supernatural causes as a possiblity. It simply does not account for such causes. It does not say they are impossible, simply unexplorable, and thus unscientific. You keep pointing out how I'm not naturalistic and that other scientist aren't and then in the next sentence you talk about how science is naturalistic. Naturalism is a realigious belief and science says nothing about such things. The world may have started yesterday and Bobcat Gothwait could be the Lord incarnate, but science will never be able to address such a thing. Science is based on observation and reasoning and it is also limited by such things. This makes it concentrate on natural causes and effects. It is not a bias, but an inherent limitation that science cannot overcome. It doesn't make it naturalist, because it's not a denial of other possibilities, but rather an admission that it does not have the tools necessary to go outside of the natural.

Once again, if I was a big bang scientist, and I thought that God may have had a hand in the big bang, how is that going to look in a scientific journal? On the other hand, if one of my friends knew that I was investigating the big bang, and that I also believed that God caused the big bang, I would look rather silly to him for trying to search for natural causes when I really believed that there were supernatural causes.

First, your BELIEFS don't belong in scientific journal, but rather your hypothesis, your evidence, your testing and your conclusions. Your opinions and beliefs do not belong their at all. That's not naturalism. That's sticking to the point. If your hypothesis, your evidence, your testing or your conclusion include God, then you're not practicing science. If you hypothesis, your evidence, your testing or your conclusion exclude God, then you're not practicing science. You act as if only one of these is true, but both are a basic requirement of the scientific method.

I think you mean that my application of the assumption to scientific theory is flawed. The actual assumption of God's existence is not flawed, would you say?

I'm referring to your assumptions about the application of science. You are starting with the assumption that science is based in naturalism and that the majority of scientists are naturalists and you are ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Your assumptions are not based on reason or observation, but on your desire to claim that science is assaulting religion.

I never meant that atheism was more prevalent in the general community, only that it seemed to me to be more prevalent in the scientific one. Perhaps 25% of them were Chinese. At least half of them seemed to be foreigners. Anyway, forget that point. It wasn't important.

It seemed to you wrong. I suspect you did not actually discuss this with more than a few of them and that you made a ridiculous sweeping generalization. There is no reason for religious viewpoints not to be reflected equally among scientists in proportion to the general population with the exception (generally) with fundamentalist viewpoints that reject science as a whole, for obvious reasons. If you'd like to make a claim to the contrary, I'd like to see some evidence because I find your 'expertise' very questionable.

But I have never claimed that being a scientist will mean that one does not believe in God. I am a scientist and I believe in God.

Hey, what do you know? But... but... how is that possible? Not very naturalistic of you, is it?

Most of the ones that believe in God are not strict naturalists, but are convinced that it is unscientific to allow God as a cause in their particular field of research. So they allow God as a cause in some other area of research. It is quite common to hear about a biologist who believes that God created the first life form (because chemistry is not his area), or a chemist who believes that God caused the big bang (because physics is not his area). It isn't that they have not bothered to think about it, but I get the impression that many of them don't bother to think things through. At least that is what I find when I talk to them. It could be that they feel uncomfortable talking about them, and rather keep their thoughts to themselves.

They know that it is unscientific to allow God as a cause within their method. That's called science. I can absolutely hold the belief that God made guns shoot out make-up just for today, but if I acted on that assumption I would end up in prison with some guy named Bubba trying to make me call out to my God. Science does not require you to change your beliefs, but it does require you to seperate your beliefs from your methodology. I can believe I just invented the cure for cancer, but if I start administering it without using the scientific method to adequately test that belief then I'm going to end up broke, jobless and possibly in prison. You want science to accept your beliefs without adequate testing and that is inherently unscientific. Being a scientist and all, I'm surprised you don't understand this.

I accept it to be the word of God, yes, but there is always the issue over what is literal and what isn't. I believe the death and resurrection of Christ was literal. I believe his commandment to eat his flesh and drink his blood was not literal, as was his comments about needing to be born again. You simply cannot say that it was all meant to be taken literally. I believe the Apostle Paul's arguments about needing Jesus for salvation, etc. I do not believe that when the Bible records the wrongs of some people that it means for us to do the same wrongs. I believe the Gospel message, the one about Jesus coming to free us from all that enslaves us, and to restore us to God. I believe that Psalmists and many references all through the Bible that refer to God as the creator. I believe that God has personally called me to be his child. I know that my acceptance of that call has totally changed my life. I cannot deny the power of God to change lives, otherwise I really would be a liar. I believe that Jesus is returning one day. Did that answer your question?

Perhaps I could ask you the same question?

You accept it to be the word of God and there is a question as to what is literal and what isn't? Really? But that would mean... that would mean... that your flawed assessment of the people you spoke to was based on your possibly flawed assessment of what is and what isn't the word of God. Good. We agree.

My assessment is that the Bible is only useful if one examines it in the context of the time it was written and in the language it was written in. It is very poorly translated. I'll give you an example. Do you know what the word fonication means today? It's still used in the Bible, but it had a different meaning when the Bible was translated to use the word several hundred years ago. Was the Bible wrong then or is it wrong now? Would we be better to accept the meaning then or the meaning of the word now?

The obvious answer is that the meaning of the word when it was first translated is more accurate unless the translater was psychic. Yet, most people act is if it was intended to mean what we hold to be the meaning of the word today. If I had to bet, in fact, I'll bet you had to look at the definition and the word origin just to know what I'm talking about.

Much of what people hold to be in the Bible actually is not there. Anywhere. Much of what people hold to be very clear in the Bible isn't very clear even today and it is less clear if today is the current translation.

That said, I've spent a lot of time making a clear understanding of the words of Jesus. His words are simple and clear. His direction for us is too. I follow that.

What I have been saying is that while we cannot use science to investigate God, we can allow that he may have e.g. created humans as humans if the evidence points that way. While we examine only natural causes and effects, we need not force ourselves to look for one if we don't think it exists.


This is exactly the kind of statement that causes people to question your understanding of scientific principles.

You don't get to 'choose' which evidence you accept, and a theory without some experimental/observable basis is really not a 'theory'.

What YOU think exists is irrelevent.


Wow, and I wonder that you are so against what I am saying. I am only trying to allow my science to be consistent with what I believe. If I believe that God was the cause behind the universe, why should I assume that he only used natural causes?


You should assume what there is basis to assume. In your 'off-duty' time, you can believe God literally made Adam from a handful of earth. If, however, that idea shapes your approach to scientific practise, then that is not science... no matter what your 'job description' says.


If I happened to be a scientist investigating the big bang, for example, how would I go about looking for natural causes for the big bang if I believed that God made the big bang?


It really doesn't matter whether God made the Big Bang. Everything we can scientifically 'know' about the universe, stems from that event.

And, if you are a scientist, you would "go about looking for natural causes for the big bang" the same way you would for "go about looking for natural causes for pizza"... you'd examine the evidence.

If your belief does not allow you to do that, then your 'science' is a perversion.


Once again, if I was a big bang scientist, and I thought that God may have had a hand in the big bang, how is that going to look in a scientific journal?


It would be unsupportable, one assumes... so it would have no place in the journal. Scientific journals are not churches... which is why they demand something more rigourous than 'preaching'.


On the other hand, if one of my friends knew that I was investigating the big bang, and that I also believed that God caused the big bang, I would look rather silly to him for trying to search for natural causes when I really believed that there were supernatural causes.


Again, a 'scientist' doesn't get to 'choose' to look for evidence... and if he does 'choose' that, then his work is not 'scientific'.

Personally, whether you have 'faith' or not, I argue one should ALWAYS look for natural causes FIRST. One need not exclude 'non-natural' causes... but it is unscientific to field such 'multiplied complications' without first verifying that there is no (discernable) 'mundane' explanation.

See you contradict yourself right there. We do allow that He may have created humans but evidence will NEVER point towards him and to suggest otherwise is to say that we can investigate Him.
Aye; what I meant when I said such scientists are really looking for God.

("...in all the wrong places")

My understanding of God is that he is capable of using either a miracle or a 'perfectly natural' method of rescuing girls in that situation.

Certainly. But we can't use science to measure any of it. A miracle would suggest going outside of the rules of the universe - bending them, as it were. Thus, it is supernatural and outside of science. A "natural" method would appear, to any measurements, to simply be natural. Once again, we would not be able to scientifically measure God's hand in it...

It probably seems to most modern Christians that he prefers to use natural means rather than miracles. While I believe I have seen the hand of God working today through natural means, I have read about miracles occurring today. The writers of the Bible certainly believed that God worked miracles. Why wouldn't he do them today also?

If you look at most of the miracles in the Bible, they are actually things that can happen perfectly naturally - storms, floods (not necessarily a global flood, but certainly one large enough to make ancient peoples think it covered everything, plagues, locusts, the Nile turning to "blood", etc. The parting of the Red Sea seems really awesome, until you examine the Hebrew and find that it is actually the parting of the sea of reeds - suggesting that God led the ancient Hebrews through a swamp, while the chariots of pharaoh got bogged down in them.

When you really look closely, even in Scripture, it seems that most of God's interference with the natural has been through "natural" means.

I don't understand you Dem. You can see my assumptions, but you cannot see that any explanation or conclusion involving the history of life on earth also has to involve assumptions. How would you falsify the idea that only natural forces can account for life and its variety on earth?

You can't. Of course, you don't have to assume that in the first place - you are the only one suggesting it's necessity. In order to perform science, you must realize that the logic of science only applies to natural forces, and that you can only invoke them. You do not have to assume that only natural forces exist, or even that supernatural forces do not interfere with the world. You simply have to realize that you cannot investigate said forces.

All scientific theories are based on non-falsifyable assumptions, including the assumption that the universe contains enough consistency and order to allow a sensible investigation.

You just named one of the few assumptions inherent in the scientific method. Congratulations.

My point was that while rate of decay is relatively well known, what many people don't realize is that the numbers generated are used together with assumptions to calculate age. The numbers generated are not numbers of years.

Anyone who understand the concept of testing would understand htis.

Of course carbon dating would be a better choice for objects thought to be more recent. But my point was that when trying to date a rock that one thinks is old via something like the rubidium method, he could get all sorts of figures that are completely wrong if he is incorrect. If the rock is really a young rock, his figures may not tell him so.

Unless there is something wrong with the overall method, his numbers will tell him exactly that. In fact, if we are talking about something with a half-life in the millions, and the object is only a couple of thousand years old, depending on the sensitivity of the measurement, his measurements might show no significant difference between now and the sample, suggesting that this measurement could not be used for dating....

Scientists aren't as stupid as you might think.

I do not try to interject my religion into my science. I simply cannot keep them apart.

Then you cannot be a good scientist.

A person is capable of believing in God, and yet believing that science may only invoke natural causes to explain how life and all its variety got here. But that doesn't really work, because somewhere along the line, unless he thinks God exists only in the supernatural and cannot interact with the natural world, he has to come clean about allowing God some role in the development of the material world. Perhaps I should ask you what you think is God's contribution to the material world. A big bang?` That wouldn't be very 'scientific' of you, would it?

And here is your problem. You want so badly for science to back up your religion, that you cannot understand the fact that the same phenomenon could have both a scientific and religious explanation - or could have only a religous explanation. In a scientific experiment, a supernatural miracle would either come up as an outlier in a series of experiments (since it wouldn't be repeatable) or, if God did it every single time, would simply show as a rule of the universe. A religious person might explain it as God doing something. The scientist himself might even think it is God doing something. But the scientific theory cannot suggest it.

As for what I think God's contribution to the material world is? I don't claim to know. I don't claim to understand God. I certainly believe that God created the universe. I believe that God provides guidance and comfort to those who ask for it. God might monkey around with the natural all the time, but I wouldn't be able to measure it, so I don't worry about it.

I don't fail to see this. I think it a smaller detail that is not really relevant to my point. One cannot claim that science is built only on conclusions. Somewhere along the line there has to be an assumption, an initial one. This is what I have been getting at, and apparently what you have not been seeing.

Wrong. You have been stating, over and over and over again that things that are clearly conclusions are base assumptions. They are not.

The base assumption is exactly as you stated above:

"he assumption that the universe contains enough consistency and order to allow a sensible investigation."

That, and the assumption that repeated measurements move us closer to certainty.

I doubt that it is most scientists.

Read a few recent religiosity studies. The percentage of atheists in science is generally found to be no higher than that in the general population. The few studies that have shown a difference have either asked questions that have been abandoned by religiosity studies as the provide results that cannot be analyzed for the percentage of atheists, (ie. "Do you believe in a personal God? An answer of no does not equate to atheism) or have shown incredibly small differences.

Perhaps in the US, I don't know. But my experience there told me that there were more atheists and agnostics than Christians among the scientists, and that was at your biggest university in Austin, Texas.

So the options are atheist, agnostic, and Christian, eh? You're only religious if you're Christian?

For me... the problem with this approach is, it means you START with an assumption, and you search for evidence to support it... which just seems like 'bad science' to someone who 'does' science. But, it is 'unimportant' in this 'game'... because the end really does justify the means. To some.

You should check out the other Creation and Evolution thread. Apparently, according to some people, that is *exactly* how science works. *cough* Jocabia *cough*

See, that's exactly the problem. Try reading. It's kind of important to this kind of debate. As long as you follow the method it doesn't matter how strongly I hold my hypothesis. I can believe to the core of my bones so long as I don't violate the scientific method in my practices, it means nothing. Your inability to understand is exactly that, your inability to understand. As long as the testing I do actually does test my primary assumption and my primary assumption is falsifiable and I accept the outcome of my testing, then whether I assume the testing with succeed or fail is none of your business. It has no bearing on what is science. Your reply to GnI just proves how much you miss the point. Sad, really.

See, that's exactly the problem. Try reading.

I posted that before reading your last reply in the other thread. Sorry about that. The problem was that assumptions are part of the process in science, and those were the assumptions I was talking about.

I posted that before reading your last reply in the other thread. Sorry about that. The problem was that assumptions are part of the process in science, and those were the assumptions I was talking about.

And they are a part of the process. However, so long as they are falsifiable and are tested and do not defy evidence they do not damage the scientific method.

<ORIGINAL POST>
This is what political correctness has done, IMO. Rather than saying "Creationists are wrong and if they take their views as scientific rather than based on personal belief, they are idiots." you have to say "Creationists are wrong, but so are evolutionists [sic]!" or "Creationists and Evolutionists [sic] are both kind of right!" I know your heart is in the right place, but it's just wrong.

And they are a part of the process. However, so long as they are falsifiable and are tested and do not defy evidence they do not damage the scientific method.

And, in the scientific process, assumptions are those things you take for granted and do not test. They do have to be falsifiable, so that you can test them if you decide that your assumptions need to be explicitly checked (in fact, usually we assume things that have been tested in enough previous samples that we feel comfortable applying them), but they aren't tested. And your hypothesis, within the process, can never be one of them. Unless I have misinterpreted you again, you haven't been arguing that assuming your hypothesis to be correct is part of the process of science.

Hopefully, it is a science that is intelligent enough to find the answers, not to ignore them, wherever they may be.
So, basically what you're saying is that you'll accept scientific explanations only if they're unscientific (i.e. will acknowledge the existance of your god)?

But you ignored my point. If you are trying to account for a particular phenomenon in nature, if you only allow natural forces in your explanation, you should not be surprised when the data points to natural forces. Nothing terribly complicated about that! And it does nothing to prove that natural forces can indeed account for the phenomenon. You have only succeeded in removing all other forces, not through science, but through assumption.
Science can only be applied to natural forces, therefore only natural forces can be accounted for in a scientific explanation. What's so hard to understand about that?


Science is about looking for explanations, and about using these explanations to discover more about the universe. I suppose we could agree on this point. What we might not disagree about is whether we can conclude that the evidence does indeed point to a designer. We would have to look at the details of nature for that. Thus we are limited to studying the natural world, but not necessarily limited to unintelligent (natural) forces, in my view. Trying to make those poor dumb forces of nature construct intelligence is, in my view, not what science is about. In my books, that is a far greater abuse of anyone's intelligence, indeed, of science itself. That isn't science either.
Science isn't about grasping for explanations it's about searching for testable explanations (and testing them). So this rules out science testing for the existance, or lack thereof of god


Wisely avoided. In that case, you will have to agree that science is not in a position to decide which assumptions are the better ones.
No, just because Willamena doesn't have the scientific knowledge to explain the necesarry course of action does not mean you're right

There's no such thing as evolutionism, evolution is a natural process, and any one who believes in creation to the point that they try to say they're martyrs should just be shot.


Thread over.

But how is that revealed in the data? The data, which is of the natural world, will always indicate a natural cause and a natural outcome in addition to whatever else you wish to "allow".

Perhaps it will be useful if I use an oversimplified analogy. Let's say I was wandering around somewhere like the flat African plains and discovered a rather straight line of trees, growing out the in middle of nowhere, (i.e., not close to human habitation). The line of trees included a hundred or so, spaced at 50 meter intervals, and the deviation of trees from the line was no more than centimeters. So I think to myself, crumbs, what an curious thing! How can I explain this? So I take the measurements, head back to my lab in Germany, and write a paper about it.

My first approach will be to consider natural and non-human causes. Based on what we know about nature, I will consider that the trees may follow an underground stream of water. But we know that stream usually don't follow lines, but the path of least resistance. Sine the ground was fairly flat, an underground stream is perhaps unlikely. And so on and so on will I consider all the possible causes. I will of course, consider that the trees were planted by humans, i.e., that the pattern was designed, since it obvious that this has to be one of the most likely causes, and we see such pattern devised by humans everywhere. Now, if I discover the age of the trees is such that they were old enough to be around before there were any humans around (my analogy is getting weak here, since I know trees usually are not supposed to be that old, but bear with me), then my most likely cause (human intervention) no longer looks likely. At this point, there is nothing in my science that suggest a supernatural intervention.

My argument is not that I think science can turn over direct evidence of a supernatural cause for the line of trees. Rather, when I write the paper, I am likely to conclude that I have not found any sufficient natural causes. Quite possibly, I would not mention the supernatural as a cause in my paper, or that I suspect an intelligence behind it, only that all of the natural causes investigated were most likely insufficient. Of course, there is always the possibility that I have not thought of a natural cause, or underestimated one, or that science has not uncovered all of the natural causes. I can even state this in my paper as a limitation of my research.

What this means is that if I suspect a supernatural cause, rather than mentioning it in my paper (which is only likely to 1) get people upset and 2) get the paper rejected, regardless of the truth it may have contained), I will not conclude that the line of trees was placed there through randomness or a happy accident. Naturalism confines itself to this source when it rules out the possibility of design or of interference from the supernatural. Considering that we do not find randomness in our universe (we don't even know how to find it), it would be unwise of me to list randomness as a cause. It also means that in future research, I will not be spending money on trying to find a way through which randomness can account for the line of trees. Such effort would be futile, because I suspect a supernatural intervention. Rather, I would direct my research from the point of view that it may have been caused by a supernatural intervention, and from there look for other examples, and see if the evidence fits with a supernatural intervention.

This was, of course, a rather oversimplified analogy of how science based on creationist assumptions might look. I will always be considering natural causes, and I will only be investigating the natural world. But I have simply refused to rule out the supernatural as a cause, and allow that possibility to influence the approach that I have to investigation the natural world.

Another limitation in thinking this way is that a creationist doesn't necessarily make a clear distinction between the supernatural and the natural (a Greek origin, as far as I have read). He would probably consider that science is too limited to be able to know the limits of the natural world. In his world view, the material world is an extension of the spiritual world, like the computer simulated world is an extension of the material world. Thus, while he recognises that science is indeed limited, not only to investigate the spiritual world, but also the material one, since there will be an a place where the material world and physical world are too hard to distinguish (a kind of overlap, but not really--I'm struggling to understand it and use the right words).

My argument is not that I think science can turn over direct evidence of a supernatural cause for the line of trees. Rather, when I write the paper, I am likely to conclude that I have not found any sufficient natural causes. Quite possibly, I would not mention the supernatural as a cause in my paper, or that I suspect an intelligence behind it, only that all of the natural causes investigated were most likely insufficient. Of course, there is always the possibility that I have not thought of a natural cause, or underestimated one, or that science has not uncovered all of the natural causes. I can even state this in my paper as a limitation of my research.You basically fail to distinguish between your imagination & objective knowledge, on a personal level.

You won't mention supernatural causes, not because you don't have a single shread of evidence for that conclusion, but because you know it would be rejected by your peers. Odd.
Do you perhaps wonder why such a conclusion would be rejected? Or do you just assume people have it in for your personal beliefs?I will not conclude that the line of trees was placed there through randomness or a happy accident. And why should you?
According to your example, you have no supportable hypothesis. It might mean the tree-line came about by chance, that an angel planted them, or that a dino shat seeds in a thoroughly ordered fashion.
Or it might mean something else entirely. You have nothong to base your speculations on, so of course you should acknowledge that.Naturalism confines itself to this source when it rules out the possibility of design or of interference from the supernatural.YEs. But naturalism & the scientific method, isn't the same thing. The scientific method does not exclude the supernatural. It just can't be used to investigate supernatural phenomena, so you can't ever draw conclusions based on supernatural phenomena using it.

At the very most, you can use it to conclude you lack the knowledge or ability to draw any conclusions. That isn't evidence of the supernatural. Lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself.Considering that we do not find randomness in our universe (we don't even know how to find it), it would be unwise of me to list randomness as a cause. It also means that in future research, I will not be spending money on trying to find a way through which randomness can account for the line of trees. Such effort would be futile, because I suspect a supernatural intervention. Rather, I would direct my research from the point of view that it may have been caused by a supernatural intervention, and from there look for other examples, and see if the evidence fits with a supernatural intervention.Eh? So a combination of waterlines, wind flow & animal activity couldn't account for this sort of phenomenon?

In any case, your approach is all wrong. You won't ever find any sort of evidence when you're trying to back up a hypothesis involving the supernatural, so it's a waste of time - for you, personally.
But sure, it might accidentially result in you discovering evidence of a natural explanation. Lack of evidence, though, isn't evidence in itself. So even if you fail to discover a natural explanation, you're also guaranteed to fail in finding a supernatural explanation.This was, of course, a rather oversimplified analogy of how science based on creationist assumptions might look. I will always be considering natural causes, and I will only be investigating the natural world. But I have simply refused to rule out the supernatural as a cause, and allow that possibility to influence the approach that I have to investigation the natural world.As long as you undergo peer review, the only problem I see with your approach, is that you can't ever find evidence supporting the kind of conclusions you'd like to draw.
Y/our peers might be able to base a few theories on your failed research though, so it isn't all bad.Another limitation in thinking this way <Snip> If you put your philosophical ideas on the backburner for a bit, you'll see they aren't relevant in this context. It is clearly defined what the scientific method can be applied to.
You can agree or disagree with the definitions all you wish, as long as you acknowledge them, and the limitations they impose on use of the methodology. That's what Demp & Jocabia do, when they seperate their work from their personal philosophies - and you can do it too, if you're willing to learn how.

Baran-Duine, now I'm impressed. You're reading the entire thread?? ;)

*snip* It also means that in future research, I will not be spending money on trying to find a way through which randomness can account for the line of trees. Such effort would be futile, because I suspect a supernatural intervention. Rather, I would direct my research from the point of view that it may have been caused by a supernatural intervention, and from there look for other examples, and see if the evidence fits with a supernatural intervention.
You're right; it's not a very good analogy. ;) Although you conducted the beginning of your hypothetical investigation with a neutral goal in mind, simply a search for discovery of the cause of the pattern of trees, you have defaulted in the end to indicating that you are conducting investigaiton (or further investigation) with a biased goal in mind (proving that such-and-such caused it).

Perhaps analogies aren't as useful here as actually learning about what is revealed in the "information systems."

This was, of course, a rather oversimplified analogy of how science based on creationist assumptions might look. I will always be considering natural causes, and I will only be investigating the natural world. But I have simply refused to rule out the supernatural as a cause, and allow that possibility to influence the approach that I have to investigation the natural world.
Right; science will always consider the natural causes, because it is all we can investigate; and also because science emulates the beginning of your hypothetical investigation, above, which searches with no bias. The reason that the natural world is the world of no-bias is simply because it is what we *can* know, what is accessible to us, what we can explore. That that we *cannot* know, i.e. the supernatural world, requires bias to know, it requires a person to say, "I believe..." It requires a stretch of human imagination and understanding to uncover, and can never be neutral.

But even if the supernatural is considered as a viable cause, what difference could that make to the scientist? We cannot *know* it through the science. Even you have admitted this; and then you go in circles again suggesting that "science allow it" (which effectively means "allow that we can know it").
(Latin "sciens" means "to know".)

Do you believe that we *can* know the supernatural, and do you want to find it using science? And wouldn't that then indicate that it was something natural all along, and not supernatural at all?

Another limitation in thinking this way is that a creationist doesn't necessarily make a clear distinction between the supernatural and the natural (a Greek origin, as far as I have read). He would probably consider that science is too limited to be able to know the limits of the natural world. In his world view, the material world is an extension of the spiritual world, like the computer simulated world is an extension of the material world. Thus, while he recognises that science is indeed limited, not only to investigate the spiritual world, but also the material one, since there will be an a place where the material world and physical world are too hard to distinguish (a kind of overlap, but not really--I'm struggling to understand it and use the right words).
But then, if it is the material/physical world we are attempting to know, how could this place that is "too hard to distinguish" ever be supernatural? It sounds like your science is addressing something entirely unnatural.

See you contradict yourself right there. We do allow that He may have created humans but evidence will NEVER point towards him and to suggest otherwise is to say that we can investigate Him. The fact that you can't see this is exactly why you are unscientific. Evidence is science. Evidence can support events that may have had God involved but they will never evidence His involvement EVER. You start with the premise that events happened a certain way and ignore the evidence that disspells that view. More importantly, you don't see that disspelling your view of how the events occurred, events that God was involved in, has NOTHING to do with God Himself and nothing to do with naturalism.

I reckon the evidence does point towards God creating humans. One of them being that we suspect that lots of small evolutionary changes are inadequate to explain the emergence of human consciousness. Studying the possible natural causes for human consciousness leads me to the conclusion that the known natural causes are not enough. This is an evidence for something more than natural causes. At that point, I have arrived at a conclusion that is completely within the realm of science, although it puts me at odds with naturalism, since to be consistent with naturalism, one has to say that no matter how unlikely it looks, human consciousness MUST be due to natural causes. However, since I have concluded that natural causes are unlikely, based on what I currently know about natural causes, this supports God's involvement, and is thus evidence for His involvement. But it does not confirm his involvement. Thus, in order to be a Christian, one will still need his faith. I cannot imagine any science that will even come close to removing the need of faith.




Yes, it does. You are attempting to have a debate about science and using your personal expertise as a foundation for that debate. Your personal expertise is fairly questionable on this subject if you don't know how seperate theories are seperate and the implactions many of these theories have had on modern science.


I hope I have used my reasoning and my knowledge and understanding of science (limited as they may be) as the foundation for my arguments. While I would be lying if I said that I was not a scientist, I realize that you are entitled to disbelieve me. My claims to be a scientist and my arguments regarding science are of course related, but not the same thing. While I argue that my version of science is possible because I am doing science, this is still true about many scientists both past and present, even if I was lying.


It's not an insult, it's an assessment based on evidence offered throughout the thread. You use your personal expertise as evidence then you draw our opinion of your expertise into the debate as well.

That doesn't automatically mean that I have been lying or that I am stupid or ignorant. I know I have told lies in the past (who hasn't?), but never on this forum, to my knowledge. I know I am ignorant of many things (who isn't?) and I realise that compared to some people I probably am quite stupid (who isn't in the same position). My point is that you DON'T need to keep reminding me of this in order to make your points, unless you are really trying to 1) upset me into saying something foolish, or 2) bullying me by withholding acceptance until I agree with what you are saying. If you are using either of these reasons, you are simply doing the wrong thing, and as a Christian, you ought to be ashamed. Perhaps you could take a leaf from Willamena's book. She isn't a Christian (as far as I know) but I'm not sure I could find a single thread where she has constantly insulted one of her opponents. It's not that I am interested in ringing her bells, only that she is an example of a debater that keeps her calm and at least looks like she respects her opponents. Would that be too much to ask from you, Jocabia?


They don't use the same assumptions. You were making an argument that the wrong type of dating is used and not verified and it denies the actual methods that are used for verification. You suggested that they would use a type of dating that has a high degree of error in younger specimens without verification and it's patently untrue. More propaganda. Now you pretend like you were talking about something else.


Not the wrong type of dating. Just a situation in which it can't be known if it is the right kind of dating. Hence the reason for the use of assumptions.


Here's where you are right, in the bolded part, emphasis mine. There is no naturalistic thinking in science. There may be naturalistic thinking in scientists, but science is a discipline and it does not allow for an delving into the world of supernatural whatsoever. Science as a discipline does not deny the existence of God or the supernatural. It is simply incapable of examining it.


You have claimed that there is no naturalistic thinking in science, but that there may be naturalistic thinking in scientists. That seems like a conundrum to me. Perhaps you would like to explain that a little more clearly. On one hand we have science, pure and unadulterated by any philosophical position, and on the other we have scientists who cannot do science without their thinking abilities. Are you trying to say that their thoughts do not impact their science?



I've seen you lie in this debate. It's clear that you're doing so even if you deny it. I have nothing to gain with you, but since you are offering up false evidence I think it important that people reading this debate recognize that your 'evidence' should be taken with a grain of salt.
Evidence: Humans descended from apes according to evolution. You know this is NOT true yet you stated it several times. That's called a lie.


Whether you call the pre-historic creature an ape or something else is hardly an important detail. The point is that it was probably a strong, hairy, smelly, not-so-intelligent animal, according to evolutionary history. I have no problems calling it an ape, even if it was a different ape to the modern animals. Is that why you have called me a liar? Come on, Jocabia. I doubt anyone is reading these posts except for people like you and me and Willamena and Dem and a couple others. I'm not trying to persuade 'the masses out there' with emotionally stirring arguments. I think everyone here are already evolutionists.




Meanwhile, at that point, I didn't call you a liar. I said if you say you don't hold the same assumption to be true is to say you're a liar. In fact, if you didn't hold that assumption to be true then you'd likely be in a mental hospital because you could literally believe that if I pulled the trigger of a gun, candy would come out.


What? I'm not a liar now. But I thought you thought that you have revealed one of my lies. Which is it now? Am I a liar or do I belong in a mental hospital?


You wouldn't it. That's the problem. If you go about science only creating tests that you will support your assumptions then you are violating the principles of science. Your test have to be designed to expand on your theories and to truly test them. If you are refusing to examine areas of science because of your beliefs then you don't belong within a discipline that requires you to do so. If I had to guess, you actually aren't in a discipline that requires you to do so.


Most biologists that I know don't know a good deal about chemistry or physics, perhaps just enough for them to go about their biological research adequately. They know the 'rules' (about not allowing anything other than natural causes) and apply them to their own area of research, but do not seem to mind 'bending the rules' when it comes to areas of science that they do not focus on, if they are religious.


It varies actually. I manage projects so I actually have to coordinate the efforts of different types of scientists and engineers. Personally, I studied computer engineering, but I didn't graduate because I spent most of my time studying chemisty, biology and physics because I thought my ECE courses were boring. However, I've been working within the field of science for more than a decade. What's your discipline?


So you are a project manager. Interesting. My discipline is a combination of biochemistry, genetics, and microbiology, which means that I know a little about all but not much about any. I focus on soil bacteria. They fascinate me, even when as a boy on my parent's farm.


If God created the whole ball of wax, I would say that's something. The Big Bang theory has the universe starting form a singularity. That singularity could very well have been created by God and set to create the universe we know today. The universe that resulted in humans as we know them. That's hardly nothing. It's also completely consistent with current scientific theory.


But it's not naturalistic, and would be a problem for the scientists who are investigating the big bang, or the causes of the big bang.



Also, science does not hold that miracles are impossible. It simply cannot account for them or expect them. I'd say even you don't expect miracles. I doubt you would jump off of a cliff expecting a miracle or deny your child medicine expecting a miracle. Generally, nobody even hopes for a miracle until all else fails. The point is that because science does not account for miracles or address them or acknowledge them at all, isn't a denial. It's simply not a confirmation.


My scientific investigation cannot address miracles, I agree, however, I am able to direct my scientific investigation according to my belief in miracles. For example, I do not believe that todays bacteria evolved from a common ancestor, because I believe that God created bacteria. I am not going to publish my belief in a paper, but I am also not going to search for an evolutionary tree for the different families of soil bacteria. I think this is perhaps where we are at odds.


So is science. Your claims otherwise are simply false.


My argument is that science really is able to allow that miracles exists, because the scientists make decisions based on their world view (which is not science). Decision making is part of science. What I argue against is the naturalistic viewpoint which assumes that miracles do not exist.


Certainly, but religion has no place in science and more than thinking has any place in my eyeball and you keep saying so and then contradicting yourself. Science cannot explore God. PERIOD. That's the end of it. You keep trying to throw a 'but' in there and it doesn't work. Science cannot explore God.


If I want to put a 'but' in there, it is because I agree with some of what you are saying but not all. I don't want science to explore God, but I cannot ignore God in my science.


I'd say she is a good boss. If my boss didn't fire me for gross incompetence, I would consider her a great boss.

That was another thinly veiled insult. You just intimated that I was grossly incompetent, although you have no idea of the quality of my work, how many papers I have written, or even what my reputation is in the science community.


I'm sure that your coworkers are particularly happy about that kind of 'greatness' however. And, yes, not understanding the very fundamentals of the discipline you work within is gross incompetence. However, to be fair, I don't actually believe you. You either don't actually do work within science or you do not try to set forth assumptions that include God or both.


My claim is that I am a scientist and that I allow that God may have created soil bacteria as soil bacteria, and that I have been making progress in my research. Believe what you will.



I play for the Philharmonic Orchestra and I date supermodels. See how valuable claims are on the internet.

If you claim so, I would believe you. The orchestra would be a great thing, but I don't care to date supermodels. I'm already married to a beautiful woman.


I'd be interested to know how often you tell your students that there is no point in exploring a theory because your faith says, God did it.


Most of my discussions with the students to not center around God. Consistent with my arguments, the discussions focus on the material world. All of my students are evolutionists (as far as I know), but they know that I am not. Never once have they ever ridiculed me or my ability to do science. And I don't hassle them about their beliefs.


Yes, that's exactly the point. Science allows for supernatural causes as a possiblity.

I agree. But naturalism disagrees with both of us.


It simply does not account for such causes. It does not say they are impossible, simply unexplorable, and thus unscientific.

So anything that science cannot explore should not be explored with science. I have always agreed with that.


You keep pointing out how I'm not naturalistic and that other scientist aren't and then in the next sentence you talk about how science is naturalistic. Naturalism is a realigious belief and science says nothing about such things.

I have to say that you do sound less and less naturalistic. Good for you. To me, naturalism is not a religious view point, but a philosophical one. It is based on having a definite distinction between the natural and supernatural worlds (if a supernatural one does exist) and then assuming that every effect in the material world can be explained by natural causes. In effect, the natural and the supernatural are assumed to be non-interacting. You obviously don't buy into this belief, but I question whether you can call it a religious one. I suspect that you feel that the supernatural does interact with the natural world, but through natural causes. I feel that this is a contradiction, since the idea is that natural causes are independent of the supernatural, otherwise they could not be considered natural, according to naturalism.


The world may have started yesterday and Bobcat Gothwait could be the Lord incarnate, but science will never be able to address such a thing. Science is based on observation and reasoning and it is also limited by such things. This makes it concentrate on natural causes and effects. It is not a bias, but an inherent limitation that science cannot overcome. It doesn't make it naturalist, because it's not a denial of other possibilities, but rather an admission that it does not have the tools necessary to go outside of the natural.


To be naturalist is to rule out the possibility of the supernatural as a cause. Many scientists do this. Therefore, they are naturalists, knowingly or otherwise.


First, your BELIEFS don't belong in scientific journal, but rather your hypothesis, your evidence, your testing and your conclusions. Your opinions and beliefs do not belong their at all. That's not naturalism. That's sticking to the point.

I would not publish my belief in God in a scientific journal either. But my belief would mean that I have no interest in research into the possible pre-human ancestors. However, if I believed that humans did evolved from less complicated animals, I would have no problem with research into such an area. Thus my science is affected by what I believe.


If your hypothesis, your evidence, your testing or your conclusion include God, then you're not practicing science. If you hypothesis, your evidence, your testing or your conclusion exclude God, then you're not practicing science. You act as if only one of these is true, but both are a basic requirement of the scientific method.

I'm not arguing that my hypothesis should include God, only that my hypothese would not have to assume that a natural cause exists, after I have the evidence that suggests that there isn't one.


I'm referring to your assumptions about the application of science. You are starting with the assumption that science is based in naturalism and that the majority of scientists are naturalists and you are ignoring all evidence to the contrary. Your assumptions are not based on reason or observation, but on your desire to claim that science is assaulting religion.

Science is not assaulting religion. I never said it was. I may have suggested that naturalism and religion are at odds. One can only be a good naturalist if he either has no religion, or his religion is one in which his god or gods are not causes in the material world.



It seemed to you wrong. I suspect you did not actually discuss this with more than a few of them and that you made a ridiculous sweeping generalization. There is no reason for religious viewpoints not to be reflected equally among scientists in proportion to the general population with the exception (generally) with fundamentalist viewpoints that reject science as a whole, for obvious reasons. If you'd like to make a claim to the contrary, I'd like to see some evidence because I find your 'expertise' very questionable.


There were four white American scientists, two of which I knew to be atheists, one an evolutionary Christian, and the other I never found out for sure, but I think he was agnostic. There were six foreigners. Two Chinese, one of whom was a Christian, the other atheist. One Indian, a Hindo. One Buddist from Thialand. One Japanese, an atheist. And one Pole, a Catholic. That makes ten people altogether, four of whom were atheist. Half of the Americans were atheists. There you have the details. My best friends there were the Christian Chinese and one of the atheist Americans. Satisfied?


You accept it to be the word of God and there is a question as to what is literal and what isn't? Really? But that would mean... that would mean... that your flawed assessment of the people you spoke to was based on your possibly flawed assessment of what is and what isn't the word of God. Good. We agree.


Which human isn't full of flaws?


My assessment is that the Bible is only useful if one examines it in the context of the time it was written and in the language it was written in. It is very poorly translated. I'll give you an example. Do you know what the word fonication means today? It's still used in the Bible, but it had a different meaning when the Bible was translated to use the word several hundred years ago. Was the Bible wrong then or is it wrong now? Would we be better to accept the meaning then or the meaning of the word now?

Does that mean you think it ok to have sex with someone that you are not married to?



Much of what people hold to be in the Bible actually is not there. Anywhere. Much of what people hold to be very clear in the Bible isn't very clear even today and it is less clear if today is the current translation.

Like what, for example?


That said, I've spent a lot of time making a clear understanding of the words of Jesus. His words are simple and clear. His direction for us is too. I follow that.

Good for you, mate. Now, how about his words about loving your enemies? If you think of me as your enemy (judging from your posts), why don't I feel the love, brother?

I reckon the evidence does point towards God creating humans. One of them being that we suspect that lots of small evolutionary changes are inadequate to explain the emergence of human consciousness. Studying the possible natural causes for human consciousness leads me to the conclusion that the known natural causes are not enough. This is an evidence for something more than natural causes. At that point, I have arrived at a conclusion that is completely within the realm of science, Come again? Since when is lack of evidence, evidence of something? How do you defend concluding, from the above, that an enslaved race of obese spirit-bunnies created humanity with spools of magic barb-wire, to appease the Mighty Stargoat (or any other particular supernatural conclusion)?!

You're ranting man, get a grip.I hope I have used my reasoning and my knowledge <Snip>Your person has no bearing on your argument. It stands or falls on its own.
Bitching about personal attacks, is a bit inane when you try to support your argument on personal expertise. You opened that can of worms.Not the wrong type of dating. Just a situation in which it can't be known if it is the right kind of dating. Hence the reason for the use of assumptions.You posted a fairly simple, yet thorough source on how popular dating methods work & how they're used. Your own source explains why each & every one of your claims regarding those methods, are fallacious.

I think you should value the fact that no-one have overly mean to you about it.You have claimed that there is no naturalistic thinking in science, but that there may be naturalistic thinking in scientists. That seems like a conundrum to me. Perhaps you would like to explain that a little more clearly. On one hand we have science, pure and unadulterated by any philosophical position, and on the other we have scientists who cannot do science without their thinking abilities. Are you trying to say that their thoughts do not impact their science?No. He's saying it shouldn't, and usually don't. Most scientists have no trouble separating personal philosophy from their work - unlike you, apparently.

The scientific method doesn't draw any conclusions. It has limitations on what it can be applied to, but that's the end of it. That the scientific method cannot find evidence for the existence of the poor obese bunnies, doesn't mean that the bunnies aren't there. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of something, it's just lack of evidence. No conclusions can be drawn from ignorance - other than ignorance.Whether you call <Snip>
Attempting to backpedal on your appeal to emotions, is pathetic. What you presented, black on white, is an age old fallacious claim. And you admit to knowing it. Lying (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lying) as defined by various dictionaries.
- I'm confident you're able to determine if any of them applies to your actions.Most biologists that I know don't know a good deal about chemistry or physics, perhaps just enough for them to go about their biological research adequately. They know the 'rules' (about not allowing anything other than natural causes) and apply them to their own area of research, but do not seem to mind 'bending the rules' when it comes to areas of science that they do not focus on, if they are religious.How did that have anything to do with Jocabia's statement?But it's not naturalistic, and would be a problem for the scientists who are investigating the big bang, or the causes of the big bang.In what way?

Naturalism =/= the scientific method.

Like I've said previously, I think it's high time you define what you believe the scientific method to be.My scientific investigation cannot address miracles, I agree, however, I am able to direct my scientific investigation according to my belief in miracles. For example, I do not believe that todays bacteria evolved from a common ancestor, because I believe that God created bacteria. I am not going to publish my belief in a paper, but I am also not going to search for an evolutionary tree for the different families of soil bacteria. I think this is perhaps where we are at odds.Of course it is! You refuse to investigate something that would obviously falsify your idea. If you were conducting science, you'd be trying your very best to disprove your ideas.My argument is that science really is able to allow that miracles exists, because the scientists make decisions based on their world view (which is not science). Decision making is part of science. What I argue against is the naturalistic viewpoint which assumes that miracles do not existEh.. The method is just a tool. Its no more at fault for being unable to examine the supernatural, than a hammer is, for being unable to comb hair.If I want to put a 'but' in there, it is because I agree with some of what you are saying but not all. I don't want science to explore God, but I cannot ignore God in my science.You have no choice in the matter. The methodology cannot not ignore God. Maybe you should adopt another methodology (and quit calling it science).I agree. But naturalism disagrees with both of us.Again; what does that have to do with anything?So anything that science cannot explore should not be explored with science. I have always agreed with that.You contradict yourself repeatedly, all within a single post.. Which is it then?To be naturalist is to rule out the possibility of the supernatural as a cause. Many scientists do this. Therefore, they are naturalists, knowingly or otherwise.Depending on exactly what you mean by that, you could be right.
Science can't account for supernatural possibilities, so obviously people have no choice but to ignore those possibilities in their research. To argue otherwise is to demand the impossible.I would not publish my belief in God in a scientific journal either. But my belief would mean that I have no interest in research into the possible pre-human ancestors. However, if I believed that humans did evolved from less complicated animals, I would have no problem with research into such an area. Thus my science is affected by what I believe.No. Your research is stopped dead in its tracks by your personal beliefs.
You deliberately shy away from examining something that could potentially disprove your ideas. That isn't science at all, it's just willful ignorance.I'm not arguing that my hypothesis should include God, only that my hypothese would not have to assume that a natural cause exists, after I have the evidence that suggests that there isn't one. Problem with this being that you can't rule out the possibility of a natural explanation that you (or anyone) currently can't fathom. Lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself.


And just for the record:
An atheist is someone who don't believe in divinity.
An agnostic is someone who don't believe we can objectively know if divinity exists, or don't currently have that knowledge.

I don't personally know any non-agnostics.

Keep an open mind.

Check out: www.answersingenesis.org/

or: www.icr.org/

Thanks!

I reckon the evidence does point towards God creating humans. One of them being that we suspect that lots of small evolutionary changes are inadequate to explain the emergence of human consciousness. Studying the possible natural causes for human consciousness leads me to the conclusion that the known natural causes are not enough.
But why doesn't it simply lead to the conclusion that we haven't yet found sufficient natural explanation? Why must there be an extra step to "so it must be supernatural"?

But why doesn't it simply lead to the conclusion that we haven't yet found sufficient natural explanation?Nope. Bruarong's God is the God of the Gaps...

Come again? Since when is lack of evidence, evidence of something? How do you defend concluding, from the above, that an enslaved race of obese spirit-bunnies created humanity with spools of magic barb-wire, to appease the Mighty Stargoat (or any other particular supernatural conclusion)?!

When we try to explain human consciousness, and come to the conclusion that natural causes are insufficient, we have evidence that natural causes are insufficient. This is evidence, not a lack of it. We can thus say that we have evidence that something other than natural causes may be required to explain the human consciousness. In that sense, we would have the evidence (natural causes being inadequate), rather than a lack of evidence as you are suggesting.



You're ranting man, get a grip.Your person has no bearing on your argument. It stands or falls on its own.
Bitching about personal attacks, is a bit inane when you try to support your argument on personal expertise. You opened that can of worms.

For some reason, I feel better about taking personal attacks from someone who doesn't call themself a Christian. If one wanted to question my credentials, they could at least be polite about it. When politeness is lacking, the tendency to learn from the argument becomes diminished. Since I am here to learn through arguments, naturally, I try to avoid replying to people who are rude, or at least ignore their rudeness, like for example when they call you an 'obnoxious git'. I don't want to win, remember, but to learn.

When I argue, I try to do it with integrity. Thus I have included information on my personal work in this forum. Of course I have used it to support my arguments. Why shouldn't I? No one feels good at being repeatedly attacked. If you were in my position, I would expect you to speak out against it, sooner or later--politely, if you can.


You posted a fairly simple, yet thorough source on how popular dating methods work & how they're used. Your own source explains why each & every one of your claims regarding those methods, are fallacious.


True, there were some answers in that link, but many of them pointed to the assumptions in the method. It was these assumptions that I was trying to point out. Having assumptions does not make the method incorrect. It does mean that one should not think that the assumptions are no longer there.


I think you should value the fact that no-one have overly mean to you about it.No. He's saying it shouldn't, and usually don't. Most scientists have no trouble separating personal philosophy from their work - unlike you, apparently.


I also see a difference between personal philosophy and work, but I also see that they will influence each other, and that there is no way to avoid this.


The scientific method doesn't draw any conclusions. It has limitations on what it can be applied to, but that's the end of it. That the scientific method cannot find evidence for the existence of the poor obese bunnies, doesn't mean that the bunnies aren't there. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of something, it's just lack of evidence. No conclusions can be drawn from ignorance - other than ignorance.

The scientific method is certainly used to draw conclusions. I am not trying to use the scientific method to find the existence of God, for the 100th time. I simply acknowledge that my belief in God will influence my science, so that I will sometimes not come to the same conclusion as a naturalistic thinking scientist, based on the evidence that I do have. I am not trying to make non-evidence say anything.


Attempting to backpedal on your appeal to emotions, is pathetic. What you presented, black on white, is an age old fallacious claim. And you admit to knowing it. Lying (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lying) as defined by various dictionaries.

Not backpedaling. Simply explaining my position.


Naturalism =/= the scientific method.

Sounds like something I have been saying.



Like I've said previously, I think it's high time you define what you believe the scientific method to be.

The wikipedia definition will do:
Scientists use observations, hypotheses, and logic to propose explanations for natural phenomena in the form of theories. Predictions from these theories that can be reproducibly tested by experiment are the basis for developing new technology.

The methodology cannot not ignore God. Maybe you should adopt another methodology (and quit calling it science).

Here is the very thing. You keep assuming that my methodology would be to include God, while I keep saying that my methodology does not include God, but that my conclusions that I draw from the data will not rule out God. The idea of God influences my science, but not my scientific methodology. If you cannot accept this, fine, but you have no rights over what is or isn't science.


Again; what does that have to do with anything?You contradict yourself repeatedly, all within a single post.. Which is it then?Depending on exactly what you mean by that, you could be right.

The words mean that I have no intention of trying to use the scientific method to investigate anything other than the natural world. I also have no intention of accepting naturalist conclusions. That should narrow it down a little for you.


Science can't account for supernatural possibilities, so obviously people have no choice but to ignore those possibilities in their research.

What you are saying, then, is that because we cannot do an experiment to show whether God may have created the world, we are forced to make conclusions about the world being formed by natural forces. Is this true? I have to disagree, since I don't think such a limitation should force us to look for answers that we don't believe exist.


To argue otherwise is to demand the impossible.No. Your research is stopped dead in its tracks by your personal beliefs.

There are plenty of examples of people who made major contributions to science, and who believed in a creator God. Believing that God created the world does not stop research. Believing that God created humans does not stop research on humans. No one is trying to use science to understand how God made Adam from the dust.


You deliberately shy away from examining something that could potentially disprove your ideas.

Like what, for example? What exactly am I shying away from?


Problem with this being that you can't rule out the possibility of a natural explanation that you (or anyone) currently can't fathom. Lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself.

True, one cannot rule out a natural cause that isn't understood, and one shouldn't. But when we understand that the current mutation rate cannot explain the development of human consciousness, we do so on the basis of our understanding of nature of mutation, not on our ignorance of it. We do not say that mutations cannot cause consciousness, only that it seems too unlikely to seriously consider it. Our evidence is that mutations cannot cause intelligence, since they can only alter what is already present. The evidence is that these alterations are unlikely to be sufficient to explain consciousness.


And just for the record:
An atheist is someone who don't believe in divinity.
An agnostic is someone who don't believe we can objectively know if divinity exists, or don't currently have that knowledge.

I don't personally know any non-agnostics.

I would not disagree with you, except perhaps, that an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe that we can know God either objectively or subjectively.

I don't know what you mean by a non-agnostics. Does that mean you only know people who are agnostic? Where do you live?

When we try to explain human consciousness, and come to the conclusion that natural causes are insufficient, we have evidence that natural causes are insufficient. This is evidence, not a lack of it. We can thus say that we have evidence that something other than natural causes may be required to explain the human consciousness. In that sense, we would have the evidence (natural causes being inadequate), rather than a lack of evidence as you are suggesting.
Why can't we just say we don't yet have sufficient explanation of natural cause?

Here is the very thing. You keep assuming that my methodology would be to include God...
No, not "your methodology" but "the methodology". ...of science.

I reckon the evidence does point towards God creating humans. One of them being that we suspect that lots of small evolutionary changes are inadequate to explain the emergence of human consciousness. Studying the possible natural causes for human consciousness leads me to the conclusion that the known natural causes are not enough. This is an evidence for something more than natural causes. At that point, I have arrived at a conclusion that is completely within the realm of science, although it puts me at odds with naturalism, since to be consistent with naturalism, one has to say that no matter how unlikely it looks, human consciousness MUST be due to natural causes. However, since I have concluded that natural causes are unlikely, based on what I currently know about natural causes, this supports God's involvement, and is thus evidence for His involvement. But it does not confirm his involvement. Thus, in order to be a Christian, one will still need his faith. I cannot imagine any science that will even come close to removing the need of faith.

Based on what? Using what measure? Comparing it to what alternative? You have no reasoning for you conclusion other than your bias. When you stop treating human consciousness like it's any better development than being able to regenerate a tail, you stop making the logical errors you're making. This is generally the flaw in that argument made by Creationists. They assume that the purpose of our evolution was to create us and then use that as an argument as to why we must have been purposefully created. If you treat human consciousness as just one of an infinite number of outcomes, then you realize that we are simply the outcome that occurred. If I roll 100 dice that are each individually numbered, whatever outcome I get had 6^100 chance of occurring, yet that doesn't make an argument that the dice roll must have been rigged.

The other flaw is that you pretend like science touches faith and it doesn't and never has. Science is not naturalism and you've several times admitted that it isn't. Quit trying to equate the two. It simply shows your bias and your lack of understanding.

I hope I have used my reasoning and my knowledge and understanding of science (limited as they may be) as the foundation for my arguments. While I would be lying if I said that I was not a scientist, I realize that you are entitled to disbelieve me. My claims to be a scientist and my arguments regarding science are of course related, but not the same thing. While I argue that my version of science is possible because I am doing science, this is still true about many scientists both past and present, even if I was lying.

No, you'd be telling the truth if you said you're not a scientist. Being a scientist is more than tricking someone into giving you a job. You don't understand science on some of the most basic levels. If one of my coworkers said some of the things that you've said I would personally see to it that ever paper they'd ever written was reviewed as their scientific method was dramatically flawed.

That doesn't automatically mean that I have been lying or that I am stupid or ignorant. I know I have told lies in the past (who hasn't?), but never on this forum, to my knowledge. I know I am ignorant of many things (who isn't?) and I realise that compared to some people I probably am quite stupid (who isn't in the same position). My point is that you DON'T need to keep reminding me of this in order to make your points, unless you are really trying to 1) upset me into saying something foolish, or 2) bullying me by withholding acceptance until I agree with what you are saying. If you are using either of these reasons, you are simply doing the wrong thing, and as a Christian, you ought to be ashamed. Perhaps you could take a leaf from Willamena's book. She isn't a Christian (as far as I know) but I'm not sure I could find a single thread where she has constantly insulted one of her opponents. It's not that I am interested in ringing her bells, only that she is an example of a debater that keeps her calm and at least looks like she respects her opponents. Would that be too much to ask from you, Jocabia?

You said that we evolved from apes and when asked you admitted that you knew better than that. That is a lie. You admitted that you don't see any reason why you needed to be honest in that scenario, but I do. It's not okay to mislead people and there is a VERY significant difference between the path of evolution for humans and the path of evolution for apes. Though they have some common ancestors, apes are not an anscestor of humans and you claim to know this to be true. Given that, you were lying when you said we evolved from apes or you are lying when you say you knew better when you said it. Either way, you're caught in a lie.

Meanwhile, you're not innocent friend. And you're embarassing my religion. Most people in my religion are reasonable and thoughtful. You make us all look bad when you abandon the reason God gave you and resort to deception and misdirectioin in order to make your case.

Not the wrong type of dating. Just a situation in which it can't be known if it is the right kind of dating. Hence the reason for the use of assumptions.

And you would have a point if they didn't use multiple methods of verification. Just another case of where your assumptions show that you don't know what you're talking about. You assume that they decide what type of dating to use and stop there. That's simply not true. If the artifact falls into a range where the chance of error becomes significant another type of dating is used for verification. Also, where we found the artifact is taken into account along with several other means. There has to be a broad failure on nearly every level in order for the error of the dating method to be significant.

You have claimed that there is no naturalistic thinking in science, but that there may be naturalistic thinking in scientists. That seems like a conundrum to me. Perhaps you would like to explain that a little more clearly. On one hand we have science, pure and unadulterated by any philosophical position, and on the other we have scientists who cannot do science without their thinking abilities. Are you trying to say that their thoughts do not impact their science?

Naturalism is a philosophy/religion and impacts science no more than any other philosophy/religion. Only really ignorant scientists allow their philosophy/religion to impact their scientific method. An example used by Dem earlier was the pseudo-scientific claims that the galaxy revolved around the earth. This was people practicing 'science' from the point of view you're espousing. That's not science and neither is it science adding in non-scientific assumptions from any other philosophy or religion, including naturalism.

Whether you call the pre-historic creature an ape or something else is hardly an important detail. The point is that it was probably a strong, hairy, smelly, not-so-intelligent animal, according to evolutionary history. I have no problems calling it an ape, even if it was a different ape to the modern animals. Is that why you have called me a liar? Come on, Jocabia. I doubt anyone is reading these posts except for people like you and me and Willamena and Dem and a couple others. I'm not trying to persuade 'the masses out there' with emotionally stirring arguments. I think everyone here are already evolutionists.

False. It's absolutely important and since you claim to have known better than your use of the term was a blatant lie. It was not apes and it is propaganda term used to fool people who don't understand science. People who use often it know they are being deceptive in the use of the term. You're actually defending such deception. Sad.

Albert Einstein - "Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."

And, false. Lots of people read these posts. Some to educate themselves. Some for confirmation of their beliefs. Your propaganda, some of which you absolutely know to be untrue, some of which you are just regurgitating, makes you a part of the problem.

What? I'm not a liar now. But I thought you thought that you have revealed one of my lies. Which is it now? Am I a liar or do I belong in a mental hospital?

In the part of the post, you were responding to, I didn't call you a liar. I made the point that to make a claim that you don't expect the universe to have the properties that science assumes in the universe is a lie. You don't walk out your front door expecting to fly up into the clouds. Science holds the same expectation. I did say you belonged in a mental hospital. I said if you don't hold that there is a consistancy to the universe that we should expect when examining it, then yes, you'd likely end up in a mental hospital the first time you expected make-up to come out of the end of a gun or candy to come out of the tailpipe of a truck.

Most biologists that I know don't know a good deal about chemistry or physics, perhaps just enough for them to go about their biological research adequately. They know the 'rules' (about not allowing anything other than natural causes) and apply them to their own area of research, but do not seem to mind 'bending the rules' when it comes to areas of science that they do not focus on, if they are religious.

See, more propaganda. The rules are that they can only make conclusions and hypotheses that can be tested. That is the rules. There is not 'only natural causes' rules. Many people would have called some of the research in subatomic physics to be supernatural 20 years ago. If you are a scientist, you know there is no rule like the one you are claiming and to say otherwise is simply lying. You may not be lying, you could just not be a scientist, but then you will have lied when you claimed to be one.

So you are a project manager. Interesting. My discipline is a combination of biochemistry, genetics, and microbiology, which means that I know a little about all but not much about any. I focus on soil bacteria. They fascinate me, even when as a boy on my parent's farm.

I don't believe you. Your arguments here show a drastic inability to understand the principles of science. I don't believe good science is possible by someone who has so much contempt for reason.

But it's not naturalistic, and would be a problem for the scientists who are investigating the big bang, or the causes of the big bang.

Um, no, it wouldn't. Because examining God is not in the realm of science. It's not a problem at all. Your failure to realize this shows that you have a failure to understand the basic principles of science. Science does not exclude God or include God. It ignores God as being untestable. It is a conclusion or assumption that cannot be verified and thus has not place. It does not mean he doesn't exist or have a hand in the world. Naturalism has nothing to do with science and vice versa. Keep spreading propaganda. I'll keep calling you on it.

My scientific investigation cannot address miracles, I agree, however, I am able to direct my scientific investigation according to my belief in miracles. For example, I do not believe that todays bacteria evolved from a common ancestor, because I believe that God created bacteria. I am not going to publish my belief in a paper, but I am also not going to search for an evolutionary tree for the different families of soil bacteria. I think this is perhaps where we are at odds.

If you direct your investigation then you are no scientist and you prove in every post. If you find evidence of a common ancestor and your beliefs make you ignore that evidence then you are no scientist. If your beliefs cause you to end exploration that would further science because you believe you already know the answer, then you are no scientist. You claim to believe something, then shouldn't the evidence support your belief. What reason do you have to ignore the investigation of such things. The answer is that you realize that you may turn up a natural explanation and your faith can't take the competition.

My argument is that science really is able to allow that miracles exists, because the scientists make decisions based on their world view (which is not science). Decision making is part of science. What I argue against is the naturalistic viewpoint which assumes that miracles do not exist.

Science cannot address miracles. It simply can't. Miracles are not repeatable. This is a requirement for good science. It doesn't say they don't exist or they do, it simply cannot address them.

If your world view causes you to avoid tests of a theory or it causes you to cease certain types of exploration because they may counter your faith then you are no scientist.

If I want to put a 'but' in there, it is because I agree with some of what you are saying but not all. I don't want science to explore God, but I cannot ignore God in my science.

Then you are no scientist.

That was another thinly veiled insult. You just intimated that I was grossly incompetent, although you have no idea of the quality of my work, how many papers I have written, or even what my reputation is in the science community.

Here's what I know, that if you practice science the way you claim that every conclusion you've ever reached is questionable. Thus you're getting paid to conduct work that is, in effect, useless. Every study, you've conducted. Every form of testing. All questionable. So you're either lying about how you conduct science or incompetent or both. Take your pick.

My claim is that I am a scientist and that I allow that God may have created soil bacteria as soil bacteria, and that I have been making progress in my research. Believe what you will.

If you are ignoring evidence to the contrary because of your faith, then you are no scientist. It's perfectly acceptable to assume your hypothesis is true before you begin the experimentation, but you cannot take it as a given without experimentation. You, as a scientist, should know better.

My faith doesn't limit God in such a way, so I have no need to avoid any type of scientific exploration. If I find evidence, I assume that it was God's will for it to be found.

Galileo said, I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use.

If you claim so, I would believe you. The orchestra would be a great thing, but I don't care to date supermodels. I'm already married to a beautiful woman.

If you would believe me then I question your ability to reason. All claims on the internet should be taken with a grain of salt. Particularly, claims of authority in a debate.

Most of my discussions with the students to not center around God. Consistent with my arguments, the discussions focus on the material world. All of my students are evolutionists (as far as I know), but they know that I am not. Never once have they ever ridiculed me or my ability to do science. And I don't hassle them about their beliefs.

I'll bet that not one of your students is an evolutionist. In fact, I've never met an evolutionist. That's another Creationist propaganda term, trying to turn science into an alternative to faith.

If you are standing in a classroom telling students to let their beliefs make them pick and choose their tests on theories then you should be fired and escorted off the premises.

I agree. But naturalism disagrees with both of us.

So what? Naturalism has nothing to do with science, just like Christianity doesn't. The only one claiming otherwise is you and your evidence is flawed.

So anything that science cannot explore should not be explored with science. I have always agreed with that.

And anything science can explore should be. If you limit your testing due to your faith then you are violating scientific principle. You want to base your science on untested and untestable assumption and that makes ever resultant conclusion flawed. Whether you happen on the correct conclusion or not, all of your research is flawed if it is based on an untestable assumption. I would throw all of it out.

I have to say that you do sound less and less naturalistic. Good for you. To me, naturalism is not a religious view point, but a philosophical one. It is based on having a definite distinction between the natural and supernatural worlds (if a supernatural one does exist) and then assuming that every effect in the material world can be explained by natural causes. In effect, the natural and the supernatural are assumed to be non-interacting. You obviously don't buy into this belief, but I question whether you can call it a religious one. I suspect that you feel that the supernatural does interact with the natural world, but through natural causes. I feel that this is a contradiction, since the idea is that natural causes are independent of the supernatural, otherwise they could not be considered natural, according to naturalism.

I sound less and less naturalistic? You make an assumption about me based on ignorance and act is if I have the duty to debunk that assumption. Scientists are not naturalists no matter how much you try to equate the two. More flawed reasoning.

To be naturalist is to rule out the possibility of the supernatural as a cause. Many scientists do this. Therefore, they are naturalists, knowingly or otherwise.

No, no scientists rule out the supernatural as a cause. They simply do not account for the supernatural since it is untestable and unobservable by its nature. If it becomes testable and observable it ceases to be supernatural. What was once thought to be supernatural becomes natural all the time through science. Scientist rule out all causes they have no evidence for. Aliens could have seeded this planet with life in order to study it, but in the absense of evidence we do not address such a belief even though it is completely natural. Natural has nothing to do with the limitation of science. Observable and testable does.

I would not publish my belief in God in a scientific journal either. But my belief would mean that I have no interest in research into the possible pre-human ancestors. However, if I believed that humans did evolved from less complicated animals, I would have no problem with research into such an area. Thus my science is affected by what I believe.

And thus, you do not practice science. You want to base your science on assumptions that have not been tested or are untestable. That's bad science no matter how you slice it.

I'm not arguing that my hypothesis should include God, only that my hypothese would not have to assume that a natural cause exists, after I have the evidence that suggests that there isn't one.

Uh-huh. So far I've only seen you offer evidence there isn't one using flawed and untestable assumptions, like human consciousness is somehow the prize in the lottery and we only played on ticket ever.

Science is not assaulting religion. I never said it was. I may have suggested that naturalism and religion are at odds. One can only be a good naturalist if he either has no religion, or his religion is one in which his god or gods are not causes in the material world.

Good thing naturallism has nothing to do with science.

There were four white American scientists, two of which I knew to be atheists, one an evolutionary Christian, and the other I never found out for sure, but I think he was agnostic. There were six foreigners. Two Chinese, one of whom was a Christian, the other atheist. One Indian, a Hindo. One Buddist from Thialand. One Japanese, an atheist. And one Pole, a Catholic. That makes ten people altogether, four of whom were atheist. Half of the Americans were atheists. There you have the details. My best friends there were the Christian Chinese and one of the atheist Americans. Satisfied?

Your sweeping generalization is based on 10 people. You're ridiculous.

Which human isn't full of flaws?

What's your point? The point is your project your flaws onto others in order to assess their Christianity.

Does that mean you think it ok to have sex with someone that you are not married to?

Nice way to avoid the question. Care to answer the actual question? Should we use the original meaning of the word fornication, since that was the meaning that was intended when it was translated or should we use the meaning it had now, in which case you are saying the translation was wrong when it was made?

Like what, for example?

Here, I'll help you out. Can you tell me what the Bible says about men having sex with other men?

Good for you, mate. Now, how about his words about loving your enemies? If you think of me as your enemy (judging from your posts), why don't I feel the love, brother?
It is my love for you that makes press you so hard to enter the realm of reason. I see someone walking around in the dark doing damage, would I not be loving to turn on the light. And no matter how hard you fight me, I'm going to try my best to turn on the light. Meanwhile, there are others you are encouraging to join you in the dark by making your arguments, I am fighting for them and what kind of person would I be if I did not do so with all the vigor I can muster.

Meanwhile, I have not said anything I don't believe is true, something you cannot say. Some of things I've said are offensive, but they are true, so the offense is really that you've made them apply.

When we try to explain human consciousness, and come to the conclusion that natural causes are insufficient, we have evidence that natural causes are insufficient. This is evidence, not a lack of it. We can thus say that we have evidence that something other than natural causes may be required to explain the human consciousness. In that sense, we would have the evidence (natural causes being inadequate), rather than a lack of evidence as you are suggesting.

Oh, I was hoping you would do that. Your "God of the gaps" theory is precisely why science does not accept or reject God. You claim that a lack of sufficient evidence for a natural cause is evidence God did it. You also admit that because you accept God did it that you will not explore other possible explanations.

Given these two things, then at one time we had insufficient evidence for a natural explanation of why the moon revolves around the earth. God did it. No more testing can occur.

At one time, insufficient evidence for a natural cause for electricity. God did it. Done testing.

At one time, insufficient evidence for a natural cause for disease. God did it. Done testing. Or wait, maybe evil spirits did it and we need to burn some witches.

The point is that there have been those that have always argued the "God of the gaps" theory and they view exploration as naturalism and they see science slowly picking away at their beliefs. If your faith is so weak that it cannot incorporate the idea that you simply weren't incorporating all of the evidence God made available for you, that's not a problem of science, but a problem of your faith.

I reckon the evidence does point towards God creating humans.


It sounds like an unscientific premise.

One of them being that we suspect that lots of small evolutionary changes are inadequate to explain the emergence of human consciousness.


"Lots of small evolutionary changes" is not the ONLY possible mechanism for evolution. Thus - you are arguing something of a strawman argument.

Secondly - you may suspect the evidence is 'inadequate'... and some others MAY agree with you... but, that is by no means automatically equivalent to a consensus of scientific thought.


Studying the possible natural causes for human consciousness leads me to the conclusion that the known natural causes are not enough.


So, now you believe you can know ALL of the 'possible' natural causes?

This is an evidence for something more than natural causes.


No. This is evidence that, just maybe, you haven't looked hard enough.

At that point, I have arrived at a conclusion that is completely within the realm of science, although it puts me at odds with naturalism, since to be consistent with naturalism, one has to say that no matter how unlikely it looks, human consciousness MUST be due to natural causes.


Sure - if that is your definition. Personally, I've never encountered this 'naturalism' of which you speak, so I cannot comment on it.

However, 'naturalism' or no, if your conclusion requires an assumption that is unfalsifiable, or invokes some 'supernatural' quantity or quality... whatever you WISH to call it... it is NOT science.

However, since I have concluded that natural causes are unlikely, based on what I currently know about natural causes, this supports God's involvement,


No. Even if evolution was magically proved to be complete bunkum, it would add not one jot or tittle to the case FOR 'god'.

and is thus evidence for His involvement.


Again, no. Your 'logic' is based on a flawed assumption.

But it does not confirm his involvement. Thus, in order to be a Christian, one will still need his faith. I cannot imagine any science that will even come close to removing the need of faith.


Science will never come close to removing the need for 'faith', because it really couldn't care less. 'Science' doesn't care what your religion is. 'Science' ceases to BE 'science', when you try to use it to 'qualify' faith.

But why doesn't it simply lead to the conclusion that we haven't yet found sufficient natural explanation? Why must there be an extra step to "so it must be supernatural"?

Of course, it need not be supernatural. I do not argue that it must be, only that it may be, since we have exhausted all other known causes. Of course we could get to and search for more natural causes, or sit around hoping someone else finds them. But my question is 'why must we not be allowed to allow the supernatural, particularly those who personally believe in the supernatural?' It isn't that I am against search for natural causes. I spend all my time doing it, in fact. It's just that I wish to be able to allow for supernatural causes, since that agrees with my personal beliefs. I do not ask that anyone else share my personal belief. I do not even ask anyone to change their minds on the matter. I am simply trying to defend my point of view with reason.

It sounds like an unscientific premise.
Why? Because it has the word 'God' in it? Does that mean you are prejudiced?



"Lots of small evolutionary changes" is not the ONLY possible mechanism for evolution. Thus - you are arguing something of a strawman argument.

I know of only two possible natural causes. Mutation and natural selection. When they work together, they cause 'lots of small evolutionary changes'. Do you have an alternative cause?


Secondly - you may suspect the evidence is 'inadequate'... and some others MAY agree with you... but, that is by no means automatically equivalent to a consensus of scientific thought.

Yeah, but I'm used to being in the minority. Some people like adversity, some people can't avoid it. I'm not sure which category I am in, but I know that being in the minority doesn't make me wrong (or right).


So, now you believe you can know ALL of the 'possible' natural causes?


What would modern science be if it hadn't discovered all the major (and thus most likely) natural causes? It would not have progressed very far, would it? Yes, we do know all of the most likely possible causes, but there may be some others that have minor roles. Do you know of any?


No. This is evidence that, just maybe, you haven't looked hard enough.


Eventually, though, one has to conclude that a stone has no more blood in it.


Sure - if that is your definition. Personally, I've never encountered this 'naturalism' of which you speak, so I cannot comment on it.
Not all naturalists realize that they are naturalists. But look it up in wikipedia, if you wish.


However, 'naturalism' or no, if your conclusion requires an assumption that is unfalsifiable, or invokes some 'supernatural' quantity or quality... whatever you WISH to call it... it is NOT science.

All conclusions require assumptions, and the nature of assumption is that it cannot be tested, which is why it remains an assumption. If you say that science cannot allow the supernatural because it, well....it just can't, then you are no longer relying on reason, but prejudice.



No. Even if evolution was magically proved to be complete bunkum, it would add not one jot or tittle to the case FOR 'god'.

But I am not trying to make a case for God. Never have been, at least not with my science.



Again, no. Your 'logic' is based on a flawed assumption.

The assumption of the existence of God is not flawed, neither is the assumption that God did not interfere with the material world.



Science will never come close to removing the need for 'faith', because it really couldn't care less. 'Science' doesn't care what your religion is. 'Science' ceases to BE 'science', when you try to use it to 'qualify' faith.

Mostly I would agree. But what about the cases where the scientists try to find evidence for the events in the scriptures? Would that be non-science, because the Bible is an important part of Christianity?

Why? Because it has the word 'God' in it? Does that mean you are prejudiced?

No, because it includes a concept that is untestable and unobservable. It doesn't matter what concept that is or whether it is a religious concept or not, it only matters that the concept is untestable.

I know of only two possible natural causes. Mutation and natural selection. When they work together, they cause 'lots of small evolutionary changes'. Do you have an alternative cause?

You know of two != there are two. This is the flaw in your reasoning.

Yeah, but I'm used to being in the minority. Some people like adversity, some people can't avoid it. I'm not sure which category I am in, but I know that being in the minority doesn't make me wrong (or right).

I couldn't agree with this sentiment more, actually.

What would modern science be if it hadn't discovered all the major (and thus most likely) natural causes? It would not have progressed very far, would it? Yes, we do know all of the most likely possible causes, but there may be some others that have minor roles. Do you know of any?

No, we don't know all of the major causes or the most likely causes. We have no way of comparing what we know to what we don't know, because, well, we don't know it.

Eventually, though, one has to conclude that a stone has no more blood in it.

Terrible comparison. Logic dictates that we will never be done with scientific exploration. It also dictates that we have no way of knowing what percentage of scientific knowledge we have or even if such a percentage is possible to calculate.

Not all naturalists realize that they are naturalists. But look it up in wikipedia, if you wish.

Regardless, there is no tenet of science that requires one to find a 'natural' explanation. There is only the tenet which requires that all assumptions be tested and verified prior to becoming assumptions (Dem, is gonna pull her hair out over that statement) and that all hypotheses and conclusions be the result of observation and testing and be subject to observation and testing. You claim that is naturalism, but there are plenty of natural explanations that science will not touch because there is no evidence and no ability to test such explanations.

All conclusions require assumptions, and the nature of assumption is that it cannot be tested, which is why it remains an assumption. If you say that science cannot allow the supernatural because it, well....it just can't, then you are no longer relying on reason, but prejudice.

False. Assumptions in terms of what we assume to be true in order to reach a conclusion in science must have been previously tested. In scientific testing, the only thing that should be in question is the basis of your hypothesis. All assumptions must be testable. All of them.

It can allow for the supernatural, but it simply does not address it. God could have glued my ears on, but science is not going to acknowledge that without evidence. It's not a rejection of the possibility of the supernatural, it just simply won't acknowledge it. You don't understand the difference.

But I am not trying to make a case for God. Never have been, at least not with my science.

No, you're not trying to make a case. You simply want science to just assume you are correct. That's worse.

The assumption of the existence of God is not flawed, neither is the assumption that God did not interfere with the material world.

It's not flawed. It's simply not scientific. The second assumption is not scientific either and that's why science does not make said assumption. It simply can account for any interference by God as it is untestable.

Mostly I would agree. But what about the cases where the scientists try to find evidence for the events in the scriptures? Would that be non-science, because the Bible is an important part of Christianity?

There is nothing wrong with looking for evidence of the events in the scriptures provided all evidence is collected and not just the evidence that agrees with you. Of course, finding said evidence does not confirm anything more than than the stories in the Bible are based (however literally or loosely) on reality. Nothing more. Now, the question is what about when those scientists find evidence that the events in the scriptures did not literally occur? Are you willing to accept both the support and the debunking of the events?

Of course, it need not be supernatural. I do not argue that it must be, only that it may be, since we have exhausted all other known causes. Of course we could get to and search for more natural causes, or sit around hoping someone else finds them. But my question is 'why must we not be allowed to allow the supernatural, particularly those who personally believe in the supernatural?' It isn't that I am against search for natural causes. I spend all my time doing it, in fact. It's just that I wish to be able to allow for supernatural causes, since that agrees with my personal beliefs. I do not ask that anyone else share my personal belief. I do not even ask anyone to change their minds on the matter. I am simply trying to defend my point of view with reason.

You can allow for supernatural causes or other natural causes you have no evidence for and no observation on which to base them. You are allowed, it's simply not science. Your problem is that you admit that because you've decided that it has a supernatural cause that you no longer need to continue testing. That's the particular reason why such things are unscientific. If your conclusion cannot be tested and verified or debunked then it is not a scienitific conclusion.

Come again? Since when is lack of evidence, evidence of something? How do you defend concluding, from the above, that an enslaved race of obese spirit-bunnies created humanity with spools of magic barb-wire, to appease the Mighty Stargoat (or any other particular supernatural conclusion)?!When we try to explain human consciousness, and come to the conclusion that natural causes are insufficient, we have evidence that natural causes are insufficient. This is evidence, not a lack of it. We can thus say that we have evidence that something other than natural causes may be required to explain the human consciousness. In that sense, we would have the evidence (natural causes being inadequate), rather than a lack of evidence as you are suggesting.All you'd have evidence of, is human ignorance. Unless you are all-knowing, you can't rule out the possibility of a natural (or supernatural) explanation.

You argue that you can correctly assume a supernatural cause, because you've failed to find a natural cause. It's the most arrogant thing I have ever heard. Do you honestly claim that it is impossible for there to be natural mechanisms/causes that you don't know about, or can't understand?

Other than that, it's also a class example of the God of the Gaps fallacy: "I can't explain it; ergo God did it"

Lack of evidence doesn't exclude natural or supernatural explanations. It's simply lack of evidence.

If your illogic was true, you'd have single-handedly killed the supernatural; there is no evidence for the supernatural, ergo the supernatural must have natural causes.

You're ranting man, get a grip.Your person has no bearing on your argument. It stands or falls on its own.
Bitching about personal attacks, is a bit inane when you try to support your argument on personal expertise. You opened that can of worms.For some reason, I feel better about taking personal attacks from someone who doesn't call themself a Christian. If one wanted to question my credentials, they could at least be polite about it. When politeness is lacking, the tendency to learn from the argument becomes diminished. Since I am here to learn through arguments, naturally, I try to avoid replying to people who are rude, or at least ignore their rudeness, like for example when they call you an 'obnoxious git'. I don't want to win, remember, but to learn.

When I argue, I try to do it with integrity. Thus I have included information on my personal work in this forum. Of course I have used it to support my arguments. Why shouldn't I? No one feels good at being repeatedly attacked. If you were in my position, I would expect you to speak out against it, sooner or later--politely, if you can.If the shoe fits...

Your person isn't part of your argument, and you shouldn't try to mix the two. If & when you do so, you turn this into a debate about your person, and I have a strong suspicion you wouldn't want to hear what people have to say about you.

Of course, if it's an attempt at flame-baiting, I'll have to admit that it's the most elegant I've seen to date.You posted a fairly simple, yet thorough source on how popular dating methods work & how they're used. Your own source explains why each & every one of your claims regarding those methods, are fallacious.True, there were some answers in that link, but many of them pointed to the assumptions in the method. It was these assumptions that I was trying to point out. Having assumptions does not make the method incorrect. It does mean that one should not think that the assumptions are no longer there.I've read every single post you've made since you posted that source. I have yet to see you raise a question it doesn't answer.

You do seem to lose track of what you're talking about though, so perhaps that's what's causing you problems.I think you should value the fact that no-one have overly mean to you about it.No. He's saying it shouldn't, and usually don't. Most scientists have no trouble separating personal philosophy from their work - unlike you, apparently.I also see a difference between personal philosophy and work, but I also see that they will influence each other, and that there is no way to avoid this.In practical terms, it is easily avoided. All it takes is a willingness to question one's convictions. You just aren't.

To use your own analogy: if you're researching bacteria, and come to the conclusion (or always had it) that bacteria don't share a common ancestor, you should do everything you can possibly think of, to find evidence of common ancestry. That is what is meant by falsification.
If you can't find any such evidence, you'll have scientific evidence to support your hypothesis that bacteria do not share a common ancestor. If you don't do the research, you're just sitting on your arse promoting idle speculation - and that has nothing to do with science.The scientific method doesn't draw any conclusions. It has limitations on what it can be applied to, but that's the end of it. That the scientific method cannot find evidence for the existence of the poor obese bunnies, doesn't mean that the bunnies aren't there. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of something, it's just lack of evidence. No conclusions can be drawn from ignorance - other than ignorance.The scientific method is certainly used to draw conclusions. I am not trying to use the scientific method to find the existence of God, for the 100th time. I simply acknowledge that my belief in God will influence my science, so that I will sometimes not come to the same conclusion as a naturalistic thinking scientist, based on the evidence that I do have. I am not trying to make non-evidence say anything.That's a fundamental misunderstanding right there. The method is used to disprove conclusions. The difference is vast. Besides, you were arguing the method has the build-in philosophical conclusion of naturalism, which isn't true.

While it is - at least theoretically - true that the beliefs of a person doing something, will bleed over into that person's work, the methodology itself is designed to prevent such things, as much as possible. This is why the scientific approach is to disprove, rather than prove, your work. Again, if we're talking about ancestry, the scientific approach is to try to find the common ancestry, not to stop looking & declare the case closed. If you do the latter, you'll never have the slightest idea whether you're right or wrong, whereas the former will give you some pretty good pointers.

Imagine if someone working with abiogenesis took your approach. He could simply say "well all organisms can be broken down into their chemical components, so obviously I'm right."Naturalism =/= the scientific method. Sounds like something I have been saying.Yea, you're flip-flopping all over the place. Are you semi-senile, or just annoying?The methodology cannot not ignore God. Maybe you should adopt another methodology (and quit calling it science). Here is the very thing. You keep assuming that my methodology would be to include God, while I keep saying that my methodology does not include God, but that my conclusions that I draw from the data will not rule out God. The idea of God influences my science, but not my scientific methodology. If you cannot accept this, fine, but you have no rights over what is or isn't science.I assume no such thing, you just alternate between 2 slightly different approaches to bad-science, every 30-50 lines. It's aggravating, to say the least, but doesn't make you right.

The methodology includes attempting to falsify your ideas. That is what the above was about. You've repeatedly stated that you deliberately ignore doing that. It is, of course, your choice, and no-one can stop you. But it isn't science. You either use the methodology or you don't. Refusing to attempt to falsify your conclusions, is disregarding parts of the method, and thus not science.

And just for the record, it is beyond annoying that you try to misrepresent what I write - but very efficient at convincing me, that you're not at all honest about your stated intentions in this debate.Again; what does that have to do with anything?You contradict yourself repeatedly, all within a single post.. Which is it then?Depending on exactly what you mean by that, you could be right. The words mean that I have no intention of trying to use the scientific method to investigate anything other than the natural world. I also have no intention of accepting naturalist conclusions. That should narrow it down a little for you.I'll take that as progress from your opening statement in your previous post (where you said the opposite).

It doesn't "narrow it down" any, though. Do you, or do you not, intend to ignore falsifying your conclusions?Science can't account for supernatural possibilities, so obviously people have no choice but to ignore those possibilities in their research. What you are saying, then, is that because we cannot do an experiment to show whether God may have created the world, we are forced to make conclusions about the world being formed by natural forces. Is this true? I have to disagree, since I don't think such a limitation should force us to look for answers that we don't believe exist. Try reading it again.

I said you are forced to ignore supernatural possibilities when using the scientific method, because the method cannot account for them. It doesn't mean the supernatural can't exist, or that everything can be explained via natural processes. It just means you can't determine it using that particular methodology. Again, lack of evidence isn't evidence, neither for natural processes, nor the proverbial hand of God.To argue otherwise is to demand the impossible.No. Your research is stopped dead in its tracks by your personal beliefs. There are plenty of examples of people who made major contributions to science, and who believed in a creator God. Believing that God created the world does not stop research. Believing that God created humans does not stop research on humans. No one is trying to use science to understand how God made Adam from the dust.And all that had exactly nothing to do with what we were talking about. You were pointing out that you won't risk falsifying your ideas, but rather want to just rest on the assumption that they're correct.

Doing that isn't science. You have to be your own worst enemy when you employ the scientific method. You have to risk proving yourself wrong. Failing to do so, can't be considered science, and your personal beliefs do indeed stop your research, whenever you're afraid to find something that contradicts your personal beliefs.

Chicken...I am not going to publish my belief in a paper, but I am also not going to search for an evolutionary tree for the different families of soil bacteria.You deliberately shy away from examining something that could potentially disprove your ideas. Like what, for example? What exactly am I shying away from? This senile stunt thing is really getting old...Problem with this being that you can't rule out the possibility of a natural explanation that you (or anyone) currently can't fathom. Lack of evidence isn't evidence in itself. True, one cannot rule out a natural cause that isn't understood, and one shouldn't. But when we understand that the current mutation rate cannot explain the development of human consciousness, we do so on the basis of our understanding of nature of mutation, not on our ignorance of it. We do not say that mutations cannot cause consciousness, only that it seems too unlikely to seriously consider it. Our evidence is that mutations cannot cause intelligence, since they can only alter what is already present. The evidence is that these alterations are unlikely to be sufficient to explain consciousness.Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that is true.

How does this disprove the possibility of a process we, as of yet, haven't discovered?

The point is that it doesn't. That doesn't eliminate the supernatural as a possibility, but it doesn't point to it either. It just makes it painfully obvious we don't know everything & understand even less.And just for the record:
An atheist is someone who don't believe in divinity.
An agnostic is someone who don't believe we can objectively know if divinity exists, or don't currently have that knowledge.

I don't personally know any non-agnostics.I would not disagree with you, except perhaps, that an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe that we can know God either objectively or subjectively.

I don't know what you mean by a non-agnostics. Does that mean you only know people who are agnostic?Try looking agnosticism up in a dictionary. It's not something you can hold as your personal belief, unless you suffer from MPD - and arguably not even then. It's solely about objective knowledge of (in this case) divinity.

I don't know anyone who aren't agnostics. Some are devoutly religious, some are not so devout, and a bunch are atheists. But I don't know anyone arrogant enough to claim they have objective knowledge about [insert god]. The religious people I know, take it on faith. The atheists I know, don't.Where do you live?wherever I feel the most at home. Why?

Of course, it need not be supernatural. I do not argue that it must be, only that it may be, since we have exhausted all other known causes. Of course we could get to and search for more natural causes, or sit around hoping someone else finds them. But my question is 'why must we not be allowed to allow the supernatural, particularly those who personally believe in the supernatural?'
What is it you are "allowing" the supernatural to do?

MacDonald pointed out in his essay that we use words of things in the natural world to describe things of the supernatural world, because the natural world is the only one accessible to us. "My love for you is as fragile as the gossamer wings of a fly." Yeah, yeah, whatever... that sort of stuff. That is because the natural world is all we have access to, hence all we "must be allowed" to know through science. What is it you are "allowing" the supernatural to do? Be known. The supernatural is, by definition, unknowable to us natural folk, who can only perceive natural things. It is, and will always be, something we can believe in.

The best definition of "supernatural" I have is: "not able to be explained in terms of the known laws which govern the natural world." I accept and support this definition. If something is a) rationally known to us, and therefore explanable or b) part of the natural world, in that it is influenced by or able to influence the natural world, then it is not supernatural.

from Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary

It isn't that I am against search for natural causes. I spend all my time doing it, in fact. It's just that I wish to be able to allow for supernatural causes, since that agrees with my personal beliefs. I do not ask that anyone else share my personal belief. I do not even ask anyone to change their minds on the matter. I am simply trying to defend my point of view with reason.
Fair enough. I just could never imagine the supernatural as a "force".

One more thing...
What is it you are "allowing" the supernatural to do? The criminal who turns his life around... that act could be attributed to god, and, at the same time, attributed to the man. Where does the change come from? To say that god is responsible for his change of heart, that "God moved him," is the equivalent of saying that he "found" god and it (that knowing) changed his heart. God's work, then, is something the man enacts on himself.

That's the "influence" that the supernatural has on us. That is god's "all power", a power over the boundless limits of the human heart.

Why? Because it has the word 'God' in it? Does that mean you are prejudiced?


When the Christian goes to church, is he praying to Shiva? Does that mean he is 'prejudiced'? When I go to Burger King, do I order a Big Mac? Does that mean I am 'prejudiced'?

Your premise is unscientific, because it ignores EVERY possible explanation that does NOT involve supernature... and ALMOST every possible solution that DOES involve supernature, also.... in favour of one assumption that cannot be falsified or validated.

It is nothing to do with prejudice... that's just the reality of the situation.


I know of only two possible natural causes. Mutation and natural selection. When they work together, they cause 'lots of small evolutionary changes'. Do you have an alternative cause?


First - your knowledge means nothing. Just because you don't know it, does not make it so. Thus, to assume that god MUST have made the world, because YOU cannot conceive of another route, is logically flawed.

Second - Your assumption is flawed on another level... you say "Mutation and natural selection. When they work together, they cause 'lots of small evolutionary changes'"... but can you prove it? Can you prove that they couldn't occassionally, also produce large changes? Indeed... if you stack up apparently unrelated genetic changes... could not the final 'visible' change, be quite considerable?

Third - I could offer up Lamarckism. Personally, I think it seriously argued against by scientific evidence.... but you don't seem to consider THAT a handicap to a 'theory'...


Yeah, but I'm used to being in the minority. Some people like adversity, some people can't avoid it. I'm not sure which category I am in, but I know that being in the minority doesn't make me wrong (or right).


You brought up the subject of this 'we'.... "we suspect that lots of small evolutionary changes are inadequate". I am merely pointing out that 'we' is not all that inclusive.


What would modern science be if it hadn't discovered all the major (and thus most likely) natural causes? It would not have progressed very far, would it? Yes, we do know all of the most likely possible causes, but there may be some others that have minor roles. Do you know of any?


I really hope you are not serious.

The Earth revolves AROUND the sun, you know.... at least, SOME believe that is so...

The point being, it is the UTMOST folly, to set yourself up in the assumption that we, in ANY way, know all the possible salient points. It's the big difference between science and religion...

Secondly... despite the ridiculous assertion that we must be close to knowing everything about the subject... you exclude the possibility of our 'science' having missed other causes, and then ask me if I know any... and... I would have discovered these... how?


Eventually, though, one has to conclude that a stone has no more blood in it.


Fine. Prove it.


Not all naturalists realize that they are naturalists. But look it up in wikipedia, if you wish.


I do not 'wish'. I have no care for the (usually vastly inaccurate) terms of others.


All conclusions require assumptions, and the nature of assumption is that it cannot be tested, which is why it remains an assumption. If you say that science cannot allow the supernatural because it, well....it just can't, then you are no longer relying on reason, but prejudice.


You fail to understand even the most basic premises of science. I really do wonder if there is ANY truth to your claims of being 'a scientist' at all.

An 'assumption' is NOT 'that which cannot be tested'. It is that which is assumed. Why do I 'assume' the value for acceleration due to gravity in my equation? Because it has found to be effectively constant, in every test I (and others) have done under similar circumstances.

ANY 'assumption' which requires the unfalsifiable is unscientific... because the Scientific Method requires falsifiability. If that makes you 'sad' at 'being left out'... well, you need to find another field. It is not a 'prejudice' of science... it is what science IS.


But I am not trying to make a case for God. Never have been, at least not with my science.


That is very much not true. Let me quote your OWN words for you: "this supports God's involvement".


The assumption of the existence of God is not flawed, neither is the assumption that God did not interfere with the material world.


The assumption of the existence of God IS flawed, if we are debating a scientific process or mechanism.... because it cannot be falsified.

If you cannot get THAT, you have no hope of ever really understanding 'science'.


Mostly I would agree. But what about the cases where the scientists try to find evidence for the events in the scriptures? Would that be non-science, because the Bible is an important part of Christianity?

It really rather depends on what you are looking for. I'd say it is dangerous ground to go looking for evidence for anything that you arrive at through a means OTHER THAN experiment and observation.

I'd say it is certainly extremely 'unscientific' to go looking for evidence of the unfalsifiable.

Evolutionism is dumb.....so is every other theory of, how we came to be.
i'll admit that it's interesting (and sometime fun to laugh) at what some people say about this.
If people just magically appeared, then why aren't they still magically appearing??
God did everything...made this world and us
well i'm outty

Evolutionism is dumb.....so is every other theory of, how we came to be.
i'll admit that it's interesting (and sometime fun to laugh) at what some people say about this.
If people just magically appeared, then why aren't they still magically appearing??
God did everything...made this world and us
well i'm outtyGot run over by the clue-train, eh?

The trick is to get on it, not below it ;)

If people just magically appeared, then why aren't they still magically appearing??
See, now, THAT's a problem with induction, or at least with an argument worded as inductive. It assumes an event, a one-time event no less, with no means of testing for more; and yet the expectation of a repetition of that event is there.

Studying the possible natural causes for human consciousness leads me to the conclusion that the known natural causes are not enough.

If this were *all* you were syaing, you would be fine.

Instead, you make an illogical jump here: "The natural processes we already know of don't account for this to my satisfaction, therefore there must be no natural processes that can do it. Obviously, my conclusion is that God did it."

This isn't science, or even logic. In doing so, you have assumed that you already know all of the actual natural processes there could possibly be that might possibly affect this. If that is not your claim, then you have no logical reason to jump to, "God did it." At best, you can say, "I don't know what caused this."

Evolutionism is dumb.....so is every other theory of, how we came to be.
i'll admit that it's interesting (and sometime fun to laugh) at what some people say about this.
If people just magically appeared, then why aren't they still magically appearing??
God did everything...made this world and us
well i'm outty

I seriously you suggest looking up what evolution is.;) People didn't just "magically" appear.

I seriously you suggest looking up what evolution is.;) People didn't just "magically" appear.

The shopkeeper did. In Mr. Ben.

I seriously you suggest looking up what evolution is.;) People didn't just "magically" appear.
WTF are you talking about? Of course they do! Everyone knows that every single person magically appears in a cabbage, where some lucky young couple finds them and then raises them (except in the very unfortunate cases where the young couple eats halfway into the cabbage, like a school child eating an apple with a worm)! Where do you think people come from? Each other? A natural sequence of growth? Ha, that's totally laughable. Jeez, everyone knows that when women claim they are pregnant they're either shoplifting or just making an excuse for being fat. Or maybe they're incubating the cabbage like a bird does it's eggs?! Oh RofLMAOzz!! tHaT's the rOXoRs! LOL LOL LOL!



Sorry, couldn't contain myself.

these science vs dogma debates are fun,
unless you come across someone who has no idea what they are tlaking about (from either side) and have to stay up until 4am trying to explain basic physics to them because they dont understand the laws od conservation of energy.
i was unfortunate enough to have missed my first class today because of a debate that i left at 4 am

Regardless, there is no tenet of science that requires one to find a 'natural' explanation. There is only the tenet which requires that all assumptions be tested and verified prior to becoming assumptions (Dem, is gonna pull her hair out over that statement) and that all hypotheses and conclusions be the result of observation and testing and be subject to observation and testing. You claim that is naturalism, but there are plenty of natural explanations that science will not touch because there is no evidence and no ability to test such explanations.

Assumptions in terms of what we assume to be true in order to reach a conclusion in science must have been previously tested. In scientific testing, the only thing that should be in question is the basis of your hypothesis. All assumptions must be testable. All of them.


Depending on what you mean by 'testing', assumptions may or may not be tested. Lets take the assumption that our universe contains enough order to allow a sensible investigation of our world. We can perform our experiments on the assumption that the order that is there will allow us to make progress. Because we always have found that this assumption is reliable in the past, we know that it is fairly likely that our future experiments will yield reasonable data. In that sense, our assumption about the universe has never failed us, and thus, it gets checked all the time. But my point is that we cannot prove that there is no randomness. Simply because we cannot find it does not mean that it does not exist. So long as we cannot prove that randomness does not exist, our assumption about the universe containing enough order will remain just that, an assumption. Science is not in a position to check this assumption, to show it false or true, but through repetition of experiments, we can show that this assumption is most likely true. We have tested this assumption enough to make progress, but not enough move it beyone 'assumption' status. It cannot be tested in order to show that it is true or false.


Now, the question is what about when those scientists find evidence that the events in the scriptures did not literally occur? Are you willing to accept both the support and the debunking of the events?


Yes, that would be the whole point of the exercise. However, I would also try to understand the limitations of the investigation, and thus the limitations in the conclusions. In other words, I would not try to use the evidence to claim absolute proof for or against the Biblical events, but take that scientific approach which says 'Our findings are consistent (or not consistent) with such and such.


In practical terms, it is easily avoided. All it takes is a willingness to question one's convictions. You just aren't.

To use your own analogy: if you're researching bacteria, and come to the conclusion (or always had it) that bacteria don't share a common ancestor, you should do everything you can possibly think of, to find evidence of common ancestry. That is what is meant by falsification.
If you can't find any such evidence, you'll have scientific evidence to support your hypothesis that bacteria do not share a common ancestor. If you don't do the research, you're just sitting on your arse promoting idle speculation - and that has nothing to do with science.

If everyone had to search for a way to falsify their ideas, then the idea of e.g. turning lead into gold through alchemy would have not been abandoned, or at least we would still be looking at it to make sure it was not possible, or we would still be looking for dead meat to produce living maggots, or any number of discarded ideas. Science is more practical than that. Rather than dealing with absolute proof, it just takes the most likely ideas. The null hypothesis is an important part of science, and we demonstrate that our ideas are most likely correct when we apply them to the null hypothesis. Only when we can show that we can discard the null hypothesis are we in the position to say that our result (which supports our idea) is significant. It isn't that scientists have to go about proving their ideas wrong, only that they have to prove the criticisms of their ideas wrong. The scientific method is not focussed on disproving ideas, but it does contain a rather critical element (the null hypothesis) that does focus on the criticism of ideas (i.e., can the result be attributed to chance). We cannot deal with absolute proof in science. But neither are we condemned to searching for evidence that we do not believe exists. For example, we don't believe that dead meat produces maggots, so we don't have to keep searching for any possible means through which this might occur. In other words, since the conclusion is that life must come from life, science does not make people continually search for ways in which life may come from dead matter. It simply moves on.
You are asking me to fish in waters that I think have no fish. That would be plain silly of me, and its not how science works.

Naturally, I have not stopped looking at the natural causes for the existence of soil bacteria, since I work with them all day long. And I have not totally ruled out the discovery of another natural cause to explain the holes, but I do find it unlikely. What I have found is not consistent with the idea that bacteria evolved from a common ancestor. But that doesn't mean I have ruled out a common ancestor. I have looked at what we know about natural selection and mutation to see if these two natural causes are sufficient. I argue that they are not, based on what we know about them thus far. The future may reveal some interesting discoveries, and I am open to the possibility that my arguments are wrong.

But the important point here is that I do not insert God simply because the holes require filling. But neither do I insert improbably or unlikely natural causes, simply because I need an explanation to fill the holes. Rather, as Dem has pointed out, I am likely to place a sign that reads IGNORANCE. The knowledge we have of the material world through science has lots of holes. I simply refuse to fill them with naturalist explanation (ie. that there had to have been a natural cause). If you read lots of the science papers, though, you will see the sort of thinking that is committed to naturalistic explanations.

My conclusion that science is limited and must profess ignorance based on a methodological approach is not an excuse to stop looking, but it is a conclusion that should be worked at, in order to remove the ignorance.

My current work does not address the question of where did bacteria come from, so I am not really attempting to falsify any hypothesis about their origin. Rather, what I do discover about them sometimes feeds my speculations about their origin. Discovering that they have their own languages that help them react somewhat like a multicellular organism makes me wonder how those languages got there. Did they develop, or were they there all along. That sort of thing.


I don't know anyone who aren't agnostics. Some are devoutly religious, some are not so devout, and a bunch are atheists. But I don't know anyone arrogant enough to claim they have objective knowledge about [insert god]. The religious people I know, take it on faith. The atheists I know, don't.

I see, so you are arguing that religious people are really agnostics. But as I said before, an agnostic postion is that one cannot really know God, objectively or subjectively, and thus excludes the religious position (which acknowledges that God can only be known through faith).

What is it you are "allowing" the supernatural to do?

To have interfered in the natural world, including the possibility of literally turning dirt into a human body and literally infusing life into the body.


MacDonald pointed out in his essay that we use words of things in the natural world to describe things of the supernatural world, because the natural world is the only one accessible to us. "My love for you is as fragile as the gossamer wings of a fly." Yeah, yeah, whatever... that sort of stuff. That is because the natural world is all we have access to, hence all we "must be allowed" to know through science. What is it you are "allowing" the supernatural to do? Be known. The supernatural is, by definition, unknowable to us natural folk, who can only perceive natural things. It is, and will always be, something we can believe in.


One can make deductions about God. For example, if God created the universe, He must be very powerful (the universe is a big place) compared to us. He also must have been very intelligent. This sort of knowledge about the supernatural can be deduced, although it will never be free of the assumption that He exists. That is the sort of limited knowledge one can gather about God, through methodical investigation.

It may be your assumption that we humans can only perceive natural things, but not mine.

George MacDonald makes a good point that we use natural things to help us imagine the spiritual world, but in his mind, imagination was a way of perceiving the spiritual world. He certainly believed that the spiritual world could be perceived (and thus known), but mostly through our understanding of the material world and our exercise of our imagination (and of course the most important ingredient, faith). The fact that we cannot remove the need to believe in the supernatural does not mean we cannot know it, only that our knowledge will never be free of the need to believe.

But let me set say it again, I am not trying to use my science to know God, just in case you were thinking that.


The best definition of "supernatural" I have is: "not able to be explained in terms of the known laws which govern the natural world." I accept and support this definition. If something is a) rationally known to us, and therefore explanable or b) part of the natural world, in that it is influenced by or able to influence the natural world, then it is not supernatural.

from Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary


I think that definition is incomplete, since there is some things about our natural world that are not yet able to be explained in terms of the known laws which govern the natural world. But that does not make them part of the supernatural. But humans are capable of something called imagination, which is certainly not bound to the known laws of nature. We have Star Wars, for example. And Star Trek. Beam me up, Scottie. All that sort of thing. This is knowledge that is not explained in terms of the known laws which govern the natural world. It is the world of fantasy. Knowledge of God is not altogether different from fantasy, except that in one case a person believes it is true, while in the other, the person believes it isn't true.


Fair enough. I just could never imagine the supernatural as a "force".


It could be that your imagination is lacking. I don't mean that as an insult, but how would one know? That was sort of a major point with MacDonald.


One more thing...
What is it you are "allowing" the supernatural to do? The criminal who turns his life around... that act could be attributed to god, and, at the same time, attributed to the man. Where does the change come from? To say that god is responsible for his change of heart, that "God moved him," is the equivalent of saying that he "found" god and it (that knowing) changed his heart. God's work, then, is something the man enacts on himself.


If a man changed his life after an encounter with God, one possibility is that he has come to know God, and the other is that he was deluded, although it depends on what god it was that he thought he met. If he thought he met a god who was able to interact with the material world, but in reality he didn't, then he would be deluded. It could have either been an imaginary god, or it could have been a real one. The source of the change is, of course, the man himself, at least partly. Even if he attributed the change to God, he himself would not deny the necessity of responding the his encounter with God. God may have told him that He really loves him and wants him to 'come back home'. The man knows that he has to make a decision. It is the decision that is capable of changing him, but he still believes that God 'broke the silence' and communicated with him. Either the man is deluded or right, because either God did 'break the silence' or the man mistakenly imagined that He did.

Further, within the Christian world view, it is God who places in us the desire to know Him. Thus it may have been that God did contribute to the changed life, not only by 'breaking the silence', but perhaps also by 'placing the right thoughts and desires in the mind'.



That's the "influence" that the supernatural has on us. That is god's "all power", a power over the boundless limits of the human heart.

If that was all the power of the supernatural, there there is little difference between it and the comforting power of the furry little teddy bear held tightly in the arms of a kid who is scared of the dark. Obviously my idea of God is quite a lot more unlimited than that. To quote CS Lewis, He is dangerous.

If this were *all* you were syaing, you would be fine.

Instead, you make an illogical jump here: "The natural processes we already know of don't account for this to my satisfaction, therefore there must be no natural processes that can do it. Obviously, my conclusion is that God did it."

This isn't science, or even logic. In doing so, you have assumed that you already know all of the actual natural processes there could possibly be that might possibly affect this. If that is not your claim, then you have no logical reason to jump to, "God did it." At best, you can say, "I don't know what caused this."

I would say that it is logical. Its not that I made such a conclusion on the basis of knowing all of the possible natural causes and processes, but that it is made on the basis of what we know so far about the natural causes. It also does not remove the responsibility of continuously looking for evidence to support or falsify the conclusion. Thus I am not ruling out a natural cause, but neither am I ruling out God. There is nothing in my data that says 'GOD' in capital letters, but my understanding of the natural world tells me that it is unlikely to find the answers in the natural causes. Unlikely, but not impossible, since science tends to reveal the likely or unlikely, but it cannot tell us the impossibilities (absolutes). It is my personal world view that tells me that God did it, not the data from my experiments. So I am not trying to make my science make a case for God, but I will allow my personal world view to influence my speculations about e.g. the origin of bacteria.

So, if I were to write a paper about the origins of bacteria, I may make the comment that our current understanding of the natural world does sufficiently explain the presence of bacteria (as I think you were saying). A plea to ignorance based on the scientific approach. But nowhere in such a comment is the implication that I will no longer be looking in the natural world. It might mean that I have a look at the nature of mutations, to see if we have overlooked something. I may even build an tree of possible ancestry, based on homology, to see if it fits. However, considering that has already been done to death and still does not make much sense, I probably wouldn't invest much time in that direction. I certainly wouldn't go into great depth of developing an explanation that I think is illogical. I would be far more likely to look at something from the view point of 'did this develop, or was it made as it is?' I am not discarding natural causes, I am simply not restricting myself to thinking only of natural causes.

This is what I feel it means to be a Creationist. To allow that God may have created things as they are, but not to assume that He did create things they way they are, and to allow the data to tell the story (which means considering it from multiple points of view, and seeing which one fits better).

You may not think it is good science, or even science at all. But it seems to work well enough for me. It is certainly possible to make contributions to science using this point of view.

If everyone had to search for a way to falsify their ideas <Snip>
You are asking me to fish in waters that I think have no fish. That would be plain silly of me, and its not how science works.I more or less am, yes. When you formulate a hypotothesis, you also formulate the simplest manner in which you may prove yourself wrong, as you've written a novel about.

If you happen to make the assumption that there are no fish in the waters, then you'll have to attempt to disprove your assumption - just like you wrote about at lenght in the bit I snipped.Naturally, I have not stopped looking at the natural causes for the existence of soil bacteria, <Snip> Do you honestly believe anyone'd be accusing you of gross incompetence & the like, if you had explained this, what, 20 pages ago?

You didn't, though. In fact, you persistently claimed the opposite of what you've just written.But the important point here is that I do not insert God simply because the holes require filling.<Snip>It's amusing really. It's quite hard not to veiw this post as one long attempt at backpedalling.

Previously you concluded God caused things you failed to explain. Now you just claim ignorance - as you logically should've done all along.My conclusion that science is limited and must profess ignorance based on a methodological approach is not an excuse to stop looking, but it is a conclusion that should be worked at, in order to remove the ignorance.Using the scientific method, how would you propose to dispell ignorance? You've previously stated there's no reason to examine the things we don't understand, and I doubt anyone on here doubted you said so, because you felt confident about invoking your personal God, to cover for your ignorance.My current work does not address the question of where did bacteria come from, so I am not really attempting to falsify any hypothesis about their origin. <Snipped genuinely interesting bit>Then you're really not in a position to speculate about ancestry, are you?

Anyway, I'm sorry I apparently misunderstood you, but since you've been using your credentials to support your arguments, I'm sure you understand how that misunderstanding came about. Just another reason not to do that in the future.

I disagree with your analysis that the majority of the scientific community are naturalists. Statistics seems to contradict your claim, and I disagree that your 'evidence' implies your conclusion.
Rather, I see it as a scientific community pointing out that our collective knowledge isn't that impressive, and that there's a good chance we'll be able to understand a lot more in the future. You see it as a philosophic grudge against your personal deity. I see it as an expression of optimism.I see, so you are arguing that religious people are really agnostics. But as I said before, an agnostic postion is that one cannot really know God, objectively or subjectively, and thus excludes the religious position (which acknowledges that God can only be known through faith).Nope. I'm not arguing anything. I pointed out that you have misunderstood what agnosticism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnosticism) is, and answered a couple of questions you had. Agnosticism is indeed the descriptive term of one who holds that God can only be known through faith.

You seem to think agnosticism involves some sort of uncertainty. Unlike (a)theism - pursuasions that by their very nature involves varying degrees of conviction - agnosticism is an absolute position, and one most sane people agree with, in my experience.

Incidentially, you correctly assumed that I believe most religious (and non-religious & atheist & whomever else you care to mention) are agnostics, at least in the west.

To have interfered in the natural world, including the possibility of literally turning dirt into a human body and literally infusing life into the body.


One can make deductions about God. For example, if God created the universe, He must be very powerful (the universe is a big place) compared to us. He also must have been very intelligent. This sort of knowledge about the supernatural can be deduced, although it will never be free of the assumption that He exists. That is the sort of limited knowledge one can gather about God, through methodical investigation.

It may be your assumption that we humans can only perceive natural things, but not mine.

George MacDonald makes a good point that we use natural things to help us imagine the spiritual world, but in his mind, imagination was a way of perceiving the spiritual world. He certainly believed that the spiritual world could be perceived (and thus known), but mostly through our understanding of the material world and our exercise of our imagination (and of course the most important ingredient, faith). The fact that we cannot remove the need to believe in the supernatural does not mean we cannot know it, only that our knowledge will never be free of the need to believe.

But let me set say it again, I am not trying to use my science to know God, just in case you were thinking that.
And I agree with MacDonald, for the large part. I tend to think of imagination as "concieved", though, and that is where MacDonald and I part ways. That is, the perception of "inner" things is an interpretation (from a unique perspective) of things going on in the person's own body, and body is a part of the natural world. In other words, that nature and supernature are integral, not separate. The "spirit" does not come from without, but is a unique, personal understanding of what is within. We cannot directly percieve or know what the "spirit" is; it will always be a little bit of "unknown" within us.

It is because it is unknown that we are required to use words of the natural world to describe it. It has no distinguishing characteristics that we can point to.

This is consistent with the idea that god in mythology is an 'image of God', and consistent with teachings in the study of Mythology.

I think that definition is incomplete, since there is some things about our natural world that are not yet able to be explained in terms of the known laws which govern the natural world. But that does not make them part of the supernatural. But humans are capable of something called imagination, which is certainly not bound to the known laws of nature. We have Star Wars, for example. And Star Trek. Beam me up, Scottie. All that sort of thing. This is knowledge that is not explained in terms of the known laws which govern the natural world. It is the world of fantasy. Knowledge of God is not altogether different from fantasy, except that in one case a person believes it is true, while in the other, the person believes it isn't true.
There is nothing about the natural world that cannot be explained, even if only by a cursory and simple examination of the facts. And if that explanation is the best we have at the moment, then it is the scientific explanation. You mentioned in another thread that if science's explanation is insufficient it must put up a sign that reads IGNORANCE, but that is not so: the only sign science can ever put up is BEST.

I distinguish between 'god' and 'knowledge of God' in that knowledge of God through imagination is the 'image of God' that we hold inside us, not any reality about actual god. We assign the characteristics of that entity. Actual god will always be an unknown, a supernatural being.

It could be that your imagination is lacking. I don't mean that as an insult, but how would one know? That was sort of a major point with MacDonald.
Well, it is, but I think that's beside the point. Maybe other people have too much for their own good, eh? :)

If a man changed his life after an encounter with God, one possibility is that he has come to know God, and the other is that he was deluded, although it depends on what god it was that he thought he met. If he thought he met a god who was able to interact with the material world, but in reality he didn't, then he would be deluded. It could have either been an imaginary god, or it could have been a real one. The source of the change is, of course, the man himself, at least partly. Even if he attributed the change to God, he himself would not deny the necessity of responding the his encounter with God. God may have told him that He really loves him and wants him to 'come back home'. The man knows that he has to make a decision. It is the decision that is capable of changing him, but he still believes that God 'broke the silence' and communicated with him. Either the man is deluded or right, because either God did 'break the silence' or the man mistakenly imagined that He did.
If he "thought he met a god who was able to interact with the material world" then we know he was delusional, because we know he didn't meet god, because god is supernatural. See? This really is a good definition of "supernatural" that Websters has come up with.

Further, within the Christian world view, it is God who places in us the desire to know Him. Thus it may have been that God did contribute to the changed life, not only by 'breaking the silence', but perhaps also by 'placing the right thoughts and desires in the mind'.


If that was all the power of the supernatural, there there is little difference between it and the comforting power of the furry little teddy bear held tightly in the arms of a kid who is scared of the dark. Obviously my idea of God is quite a lot more unlimited than that. To quote CS Lewis, He is dangerous.
There is a significant difference in what the 'entity' in question means to a person in question: god, as a spirit of whom understanding is able to move a heart to goodness, and the teddy, whose presence offers comfort from fears. Those for whom their image of God is nothing more than the latter are the worrisome ones.

I more or less am, yes. When you formulate a hypotothesis, you also formulate the simplest manner in which you may prove yourself wrong, as you've written a novel about.


If I wrote a novel, it was because I felt that people like you would continually misunderstand my posts unless I really put a lot of effort into communicating my exact position. It's not that I think you wanted to misunderstand me, but that you are so used to arguing against the creationist view point that you were not really listening to the subtle differences. At least that was the feeling I was getting.


If you happen to make the assumption that there are no fish in the waters, then you'll have to attempt to disprove your assumption - just like you wrote about at lenght in the bit I snipped.Do you honestly believe anyone'd be accusing you of gross incompetence & the like, if you had explained this, what, 20 pages ago?

I was trying to explain myself. But there were plenty of people who were quick to assume that they knew my position, and who got frustrated when I seemed to them to be 'flip-flopping' all over the joint (or just plain senile). The reality was more likely that they just didn't understand my postion in the first place and thought they had, while I was still learning to communicate in a way that would avoid giving the wrong message. One almost has to use different words, depending on the world view of the reader. Semantics.


You didn't, though. In fact, you persistently claimed the opposite of what you've just written.It's amusing really. It's quite hard not to veiw this post as one long attempt at backpedalling.


Perhaps it might look like this to someone who had misunderstood my position. Not backpedalling, simply trying to make my position clearer to someone who had got it wrong the first time.


Previously you concluded God caused things you failed to explain. Now you just claim ignorance - as you logically should've done all along.

I meant that my conclusion was based on my world view, not on my science. I think I have been rather consistent with that point. I do not personally claim ignorance about the role of God in the material world, only that the my methodological approach turns up ignorance. Have you understood this point yet?


Using the scientific method, how would you propose to dispell ignorance? You've previously stated there's no reason to examine the things we don't understand, and I doubt anyone on here doubted you said so, because you felt confident about invoking your personal God, to cover for your ignorance.Then you're really not in a position to speculate about ancestry, are you?

I have never said that there is no reason to examine things that we don't understand. Never. Only that we don't need to examine things that we feel have been already explained and shown to be most likely, e.g. the idea of life coming from life. It looks to me like you may be trying to make my posts say what I am not saying, and then accusing me of backpedalling when I point out that I have never said this.

Not, I probably won't write a paper about bacterial ancestry, but I certainly can speculate on it until kingdom come. So can you.


Anyway, I'm sorry I apparently misunderstood you, but since you've been using your credentials to support your arguments, I'm sure you understand how that misunderstanding came about. Just another reason not to do that in the future.

Misunderstanding will always occur. The only question is how we resolve it. Meanwhile, I will do my best not to contribute to muddying the waters in the future.


I disagree with your analysis that the majority of the scientific community are naturalists. Statistics seems to contradict your claim, and I disagree that your 'evidence' implies your conclusion.

Well, it depends on what you mean by naturalists, I suppose. A true naturalist is one who is committed to such thinking not only in science but in their world view. I also feel that most scientists are not naturalists. Indeed, some of them don't do experiments of Friday because they feel that they rarely work. That is almost superstitious. (Or perhaps they are just in a hurry to get to their weekend, and therefore less careful.) At any rate, modern science is mostly committed to naturalist conclusions, even when the scientist is not naturalistic. That is the point that I have been making, or at least meaning to make. Regardless of whether they are naturalistic in their world views, they are committed to explaining the world in naturalist terms. When they wish to do this, fine, but my argument is that this doesn't have to be this way in order to make a contribution to science. One can actually be a Creationist and still contribute to science.


Rather, I see it as a scientific community pointing out that our collective knowledge isn't that impressive, and that there's a good chance we'll be able to understand a lot more in the future. You see it as a philosophic grudge against your personal deity. I see it as an expression of optimism.

Then you are one of the more enlightened people in this area. I have lost count of the numbers of people in this forum who are convinced that our collective knowledge is rather impressive, enough to demonstrate religion as false and naturalism as truth.

I am certainly optimistic about the possibilities that science gives us. I do not believe it will solve all of the worlds problems. I do not turn to science to solve the Middle East, for example. Only when people choose to forgive and love will that problem be resolved. The best science can do is construct good missile defenses and strong walls and perhaps find a way to supply employment for many of those poor Palestinians. That doesn't solve the cause of their problems, that we will not truly know freedom until we choose to turn away from the hatred and unforgiveness that bind us. But I digress. I certainly hope that science can find a way to remove e.g. cancer and AIDS. A naturalistic approach is capable of doing this, and I'm not on a mission to remove it from science. I simply defend my position.


Nope. I'm not arguing anything. I pointed out that you have misunderstood what agnosticism (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=agnosticism) is, and answered a couple of questions you had. Agnosticism is indeed the descriptive term of one who holds that God can only be known through faith.


So you would really call every position agnostic. Doesn't that destroy the meaning of the word? The point of having a label is to distinguish one point of view from the other. Thus labelling everyone as agnostic doesn't mean anything to me. Calling yourself an agnostic does not tell me if you believe in a personal God (Christian) or the absence of God (atheism) or anything in between.


You seem to think agnosticism involves some sort of uncertainty. Unlike (a)theism - pursuasions that by their very nature involves varying degrees of conviction - agnosticism is an absolute position, and one most sane people agree with, in my experience.


I have always thought of the agnostic postion as one that says that there may or may not be a God, but if there is, we cannot know (and some versions add 'at least yet anyway'), and that agnostics hold this to be an absolute certainty.

I don't agree with this postion, since I believe that I have come to a knowledge of the living God, as the Bible describes the possibility. You may not think I am sane, and it wouldn't be the first time my sanity is questioned. If you like, though, we can discuss the reasons behind our beliefs, to see if there is any insanity.

I have always thought of the agnostic postion as one that says that there may or may not be a God, but if there is, we cannot know (and some versions add 'at least yet anyway'), and that agnostics hold this to be an absolute certainty.

I don't agree with this postion, since I believe that I have come to a knowledge of the living God, as the Bible describes the possibility. You may not think I am sane, and it wouldn't be the first time my sanity is questioned. If you like, though, we can discuss the reasons behind our beliefs, to see if there is any insanity.
What is "absolute" about agnosticism is not the degree of certainty of the individual proclaiming it, but the thing itself. "Absolute" means it represents one thing only, and anything else is a false state for it. Agnosticism's absoluteness is that god cannot be known. The idea that we know god through the imagination, for instance, through the image of God, supports the agnotistic view (as opposed to the idea, for instance, that what occurs in the imagination is god's direct hand at work, which would amount to manipulating us).

<Sniiiiiip>
At any rate, modern science is mostly committed to naturalist conclusions, even when the scientist is not naturalistic. That is the point that I have been making, or at least meaning to make. Regardless of whether they are naturalistic in their world views, they are committed to explaining the world in naturalist terms. When they wish to do this, fine, but my argument is that this doesn't have to be this way in order to make a contribution to science. One can actually be a Creationist and still contribute to science.I'm assuming we're still talking about hard science here.
"It" isn't "mostly" committed to naturalist conclusions. The methodology excludes the possibility of examining, and thus making conclusions, beyond the natural realm. Whether you believe there to be more to it (for lack of better words) than that, isn't relevant. As great a tool as the scientific method is, it does have its limitations.
Obviously one can be a creationist & contribute to science, if one keeps one's personal beliefs out of one's work.So you would really call every position agnostic. Doesn't that destroy the meaning of the word? The point of having a label is to distinguish one point of view from the other. Thus labelling everyone as agnostic doesn't mean anything to me. Calling yourself an agnostic does not tell me if you believe in a personal God (Christian) or the absence of God (atheism) or anything in between.No I wouldn't, and no it doesn't. Unfortunately (in my opinion), not everyone are agnostics. A surprisingly large number of people do indeed believe they have objective knowledge/evidence/proof of their god(s).

The word indeed doesn't describe one's personal beliefs, or lack there of. Rather, it describes one's opinion about factual knowledge of something.

A severely retarded person, for example, could be agnostic about where cans come from - meaning the person would be of the opinion that it either isn't possible to know for sure, or that we don't currently know for sure.
The same person might believe cans are made from seashells by pink apes on the slopes of the beer volcano in outer flippystan, but he'd be quite aware that this belief is nothing but an unvalidated assumption.

One can be agnostic about anything. It isn't inherently connected with supernatural concepts.I have always thought of the agnostic postion as one that says that there may or may not be a God, but if there is, we cannot know (and some versions add 'at least yet anyway'), and that agnostics hold this to be an absolute certainty.If you scratch the "there may or may not" bit, you'd be exactly right. A great many agnostics are absolutely certain they know the answer. They're just equally certain that noone can prove it & usually also of the opinion that noone ever will be able to.

The good old Ockham (as in the guy with the razor) is the most famous example of an agnostic I can think of. My Biblical knowledge is a bit rusty, but I seem to recall Jesus preaching agnosticism as well (though the word was invented much later).I don't agree with this postion, since I believe that I have come to a knowledge of the living God, as the Bible describes the possibility. You may not think I am sane, and it wouldn't be the first time my sanity is questioned. If you like, though, we can discuss the reasons behind our beliefs, to see if there is any insanity.If you had such knowledge, you'd be able to demonstrate the existence of your god. Since I'm betting you can't, and assume you share the belief that proof denies faith, I think you're an agnostic. A theist, more specifically a Christian one, but agnostic none the less.

I'm of course no different. If I could debunk your faith, I would. I can't, and I don't believe it will ever be possible to prove that fantasy isn't fiction. That makes me as agnostic as you. The difference is I'm an atheist & every bit as certain your god doesn't exist, as you are that it does.

You're of course welcome to disagree with the definition of agnosticism, but I'm not the one you should be arguing with. If the dictionaries of the world alter the definition, I'll alter my use of the word. Not because I'm a huge fan of dictionaries, but because communication can get extremely complicated when people deviate from their (the dictionaries') definitions of things - just like math becomes a tad complicated when people disagree that 2+2=4 & so on.

To sum up:
Being uncertain about the existence of divinity isn't the same thing as being agnostic.

Oh, I was hoping you would do that. Your "God of the gaps" theory is precisely why science does not accept or reject God. You claim that a lack of sufficient evidence for a natural cause is evidence God did it. You also admit that because you accept God did it that you will not explore other possible explanations.

Given these two things, then at one time we had insufficient evidence for a natural explanation of why the moon revolves around the earth. God did it. No more testing can occur.

At one time, insufficient evidence for a natural cause for electricity. God did it. Done testing.

At one time, insufficient evidence for a natural cause for disease. God did it. Done testing. Or wait, maybe evil spirits did it and we need to burn some witches.

The point is that there have been those that have always argued the "God of the gaps" theory and they view exploration as naturalism and they see science slowly picking away at their beliefs. If your faith is so weak that it cannot incorporate the idea that you simply weren't incorporating all of the evidence God made available for you, that's not a problem of science, but a problem of your faith.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10435750&postcount=420

We're done here. Our friend already showed through his own arguments what is wrong with his science and whe he is not a scientist. Of course, he never replied to this post, because there is no reply. If you use the "God of the gaps" argument and you refuse to test anything you have concluded that God did, then you've stopped science altogether. This is clearly our friend's goal.

*sniip*
It's like arguing with a goldfish. I'm tired of having to re-explain things to you every time you go around the bowl.

It's like arguing with a goldfish. I'm tired of having to re-explain things to you every time you go around the bowl.Yups, it's like that unlucky fellow from Greek mythos.

Not only does the guy spin things to make it look like he's been agreeing all along, he also changes his mind about something previously conceeded, as soon as he's been backed into a corner on a slightly different topic.

Slippery fella, eh?

Yups, it's like that unlucky fellow from Greek mythos.

Not only does the guy spin things to make it look like he's been agreeing all along, he also changes his mind about something previously conceeded, as soon as he's been backed into a corner on a slightly different topic.

Slippery fella, eh?

Nothing slippery about. He's not even good at it. He doesn't even wait a page before he contradicts himself. In fact, he doesn't even wait till the next post.

Nothing slippery about. He's not even good at it. He doesn't even wait a page before he contradicts himself. In fact, he doesn't even wait till the next post.Hey! I didn't say he was good at it :p

But the:"2+2=5"
- "no, it's 4"
- "yea that's what I said, anyway 3+3=7"
- "no & no again."
Thing is sort of entertaining.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10435750&postcount=420

We're done here. Our friend already showed through his own arguments what is wrong with his science and whe he is not a scientist. Of course, he never replied to this post, because there is no reply. If you use the "God of the gaps" argument and you refuse to test anything you have concluded that God did, then you've stopped science altogether. This is clearly our friend's goal.

This, I think, sums the thread up nicely. Even if there was a god who had created the universe, I think it would still be much more useful to assume he didnt exist and try to find "naturalistic" solutions to everything. Anything else is just advocating ignorance and stopping all progress in certain areas.

Why do these threads invariably deteriorate into talking about another poster, rather than to him?

This, I think, sums the thread up nicely. Even if there was a god who had created the universe, I think it would still be much more useful to assume he didnt exist and try to find "naturalistic" solutions to everything. Anything else is just advocating ignorance and stopping all progress in certain areas.
Usefulness is key for me, also. Allowing for the supernatural to explain things in the natural world adds zero to the value of the explanation. It says, essentially, "I don't know."

Why do these threads invariably deteriorate into talking about another poster, rather than to him?

Because the problem is the poster. It's easy to address an argument if the poster is consistent. But he keeps flipping around and that makes so eventually you have to point out the tactic. I'll give an example that I'm actually evidencing right now.

He says that there is a problem with naturalism in the scientific community.

We demonstrate that most scientists are not naturalists.

He says they are, they just don't know it.

We demonstrate again that much of science allows for us to protect our testing from biases.

He says it is science that is inherently flawed.

We demonstrated that science is a pure discipline.

He says it's not science but the scientists that are spreading naturalism.

And round and round we go. When a poster just changes his position whenever things get uncomfortable and acts like they were discussing that all along or continually makes you go back and rehash old arguments it eventually frustrates the argument until eventually you have to point out the tactic.

It's not an attack on the poster. It's an attack on his method of arguing in this thread. His argument is goldfishing (my term).

EDIT: There, now I've pointed out why we are getting frustrated by his flipping.

Of course, there is always the possibility that I have not thought of a natural cause, or underestimated one, or that science has not uncovered all of the natural causes.

You admit there may be a natural cause for the thing you are ascribing supernatural causes to. Good.

What this means is that if I suspect a supernatural cause, rather than mentioning it in my paper (which is only likely to 1) get people upset and 2) get the paper rejected, regardless of the truth it may have contained), I will not conclude that the line of trees was placed there through randomness or a happy accident. Naturalism confines itself to this source when it rules out the possibility of design or of interference from the supernatural. Considering that we do not find randomness in our universe (we don't even know how to find it), it would be unwise of me to list randomness as a cause. It also means that in future research, I will not be spending money on trying to find a way through which randomness can account for the line of trees. Such effort would be futile, because I suspect a supernatural intervention. Rather, I would direct my research from the point of view that it may have been caused by a supernatural intervention, and from there look for other examples, and see if the evidence fits with a supernatural intervention.

Here, because you decided the cause is supernatural you've completely ceased to investigate natural causes and instead seek only to bolster your belief. Not only is this not science, it's anti-science. You've basically stated why your methodology is gross incompetence. Because you refuse to look for any evidence of a natural cause and instead focus on stroking your own conclusion.

Now as to the issue of backpedalling and goldfishing (I'm coining that term).

So, if I were to write a paper about the origins of bacteria, I may make the comment that our current understanding of the natural world does sufficiently explain the presence of bacteria (as I think you were saying). A plea to ignorance based on the scientific approach. But nowhere in such a comment is the implication that I will no longer be looking in the natural world. It might mean that I have a look at the nature of mutations, to see if we have overlooked something. I may even build an tree of possible ancestry, based on homology, to see if it fits. However, considering that has already been done to death and still does not make much sense, I probably wouldn't invest much time in that direction. I certainly wouldn't go into great depth of developing an explanation that I think is illogical. I would be far more likely to look at something from the view point of 'did this develop, or was it made as it is?' I am not discarding natural causes, I am simply not restricting myself to thinking only of natural causes.

Hmmmm...

For example, I do not believe that todays bacteria evolved from a common ancestor, because I believe that God created bacteria. I am not going to publish my belief in a paper, but I am also not going to search for an evolutionary tree for the different families of soil bacteria.

You say specifically that because of your belief you will not continue to search for information.

There are also the cases where you clearly say that you would not spend any time or money looking for pre-ancestors to humans. I can quote you if you like.

Let's look for some other examples of goldfishing...

I also feel that most scientists are not naturalists.... At any rate, modern science is mostly committed to naturalist conclusions, even when the scientist is not naturalistic.

Here, you say science itself is committed to naturalism even when the scientist isn't.

I simply refuse to fill them with naturalist explanation (ie. that there had to have been a natural cause). If you read lots of the science papers, though, you will see the sort of thinking that is committed to naturalistic explanations.

Here it is the scientists that are naturalistic.

I simply acknowledge that my belief in God will influence my science, so that I will sometimes not come to the same conclusion as a naturalistic thinking scientist, based on the evidence that I do have.

Here you say it's the scientist that naturalistic-thinking, not science.

You have claimed that there is no naturalistic thinking in science, but that there may be naturalistic thinking in scientists. That seems like a conundrum to me. Perhaps you would like to explain that a little more clearly. On one hand we have science, pure and unadulterated by any philosophical position, and on the other we have scientists who cannot do science without their thinking abilities. Are you trying to say that their thoughts do not impact their science?

Here, you agree with my assumption that science is pure and there are only those in science who are naturalists. You suggest it is their beliefs affecting their science. Incidentally, you equally claim that your belief doesn't prevent you from doing proper science.

My argument is that science really is able to allow that miracles exists, because the scientists make decisions based on their world view (which is not science). Decision making is part of science. What I argue against is the naturalistic viewpoint which assumes that miracles do not exist.

And look, above we have another argument that it's not a problem with science but with the scientists.

How about your changing views on what is required for science to establish something...

It isn't untestable, only that it cannot be proven, and thus remains an assumption, and thus ''an article of faith which must forever remain faith and not science'' (Here you are referring to evolution)

The flaw of evolution is that it can't be proven.

But science is not interested (or able?) in establishing absolute certainty, only a workable one. It is this same level of proof that works in a court of law, upon which some people get locked away for life, and other get let out free.

Interestingly, you have several times said that science relies on an unfair assumption that can not be proven to be absolutely true (absolute truth being something you admit has nothing to do with science). Amazing bit of inconsistency there.

We cannot prove absolutely that the universe contains such order.

Depending on what you mean by 'testing', assumptions may or may not be tested. Lets take the assumption that our universe contains enough order to allow a sensible investigation of our world. We can perform our experiments on the assumption that the order that is there will allow us to make progress. Because we always have found that this assumption is reliable in the past, we know that it is fairly likely that our future experiments will yield reasonable data. In that sense, our assumption about the universe has never failed us, and thus, it gets checked all the time. But my point is that we cannot prove that there is no randomness. Simply because we cannot find it does not mean that it does not exist. So long as we cannot prove that randomness does not exist, our assumption about the universe containing enough order will remain just that, an assumption. Science is not in a position to check this assumption, to show it false or true, but through repetition of experiments, we can show that this assumption is most likely true. We have tested this assumption enough to make progress, but not enough move it beyone 'assumption' status. It cannot be tested in order to show that it is true or false.

Again, you bring up this nonsensical argument about not being able to move past 'assumption' status, which is something you admit is as far as science ever goes about anything. Again, ridiculously inconsistent. Interestingly, you admit it has never failed us and it is continually tested... the obvious conclusion being that while it can't be proven true it can be proven false, i.e. falsified.

All scientific theories are based on non-falsifyable assumptions, including the assumption that the universe contains enough consistency and order to allow a sensible investigation.

Here again you say the assumption that is constantly tested is non-falsifiable. How can it be tested if it can't be falsified? Again, amazing inconsistency.

You are pointing out perceived "inconsistencies" that might not be inconsistencies at all. If you try and look at things from the point of view of Bruarong's argument, no matter how wrong the argument might be, they aren't necessarily all inconsistent. Now, they might have been, but then again they might not have been.


You say specifically that because of your belief you will not continue to search for information.

Actually, it looks to me like he is saying he won't look for information to back up a theory he thinks is incorrect, along the lines of me saying, "I'm not going to look for a mathematical model to demonstrate the geocentric view of the Universe, because I'm pretty sure those guys are wrong."

Of course, this ignores the fact that science doesn't work by "looking for information to back up" anything, but that is one of the flaws in the argument that B makes. And, discarding evolution is not, "discarding natural causes," either. It is discarding one particular possible natural cause. It is disturbing that B does so because of his religion, but you are making the same mistake he does when you interpret, "Discard evolution" and "discard natural causes."

Here, you say science itself is committed to naturalism even when the scientist isn't.

He doesn't actually say "science itself." He specifically refers to modern science, as if modern science is something different and apart from the base logic of science.

It isn't, of course, but as Bruarong's entire argument is that one need not be entirely restricted to the natural in scientific thinking, it rather makes sense that he would see "modern science" as having some additional property he doesn't agree with - one that is not a core part of science itself (something he has stated more than once)

Here it is the scientists that are naturalistic.

Not explicitly. It is the paper that is naturalistic, which could be a result either of the scientist herself being naturalistic or of the practice of science being naturalistic (ie. the paper being written to meet the "modern" practice of science).

Here you say it's the scientist that naturalistic-thinking, not science.

...which doesn't actually contradict someone saying, "The scientist is not a naturalist." I would not have to actually agree with a philosophy in order to write from the point of view of that philosophy, if I thought such a point of view was necessary to what I was writing.

Now, naturalism as B describes it is not a necessity in science, nor have I seen any evidence of it outside of a few scientists who hold the view, but do not publish it, but he seems to think that we have made it a necessity to publish.

Here, you agree with my assumption that science is pure and there are only those in science who are naturalists. You suggest it is their beliefs affecting their science. Incidentally, you equally claim that your belief doesn't prevent you from doing proper science.

Actually, he clearly disagrees with you here. His entire argument is that science, in practice, cannot be "pure", because it is tied up in the thinking of individuals. The idea might be, but he suggests that the practice cannot be. In fact, he point blank asks you whether you think a scientist's own philosophy will affect his thinking in science.

Meanwhile, B has yet to claim that what he calls "naturalistic thinking" or that holding "naturalistic" beliefs equates to bad science, just as he claims that supernatural thinking does not equate to bad science. On this point, he has been rather consistent - albeit wrong. Basing science around the belief that God does or does not exist or does or does not interfere with the world would be bad science - no matter what. Bruarong is claiming that neither point of view would lead to bad science. Wrong, but consistent.

How about your changing views on what is required for science to establish something...

The flaw of evolution is that it can't be proven.

Interestingly, you have several times said that science relies on an unfair assumption that can not be proven to be absolutely true (absolute truth being something you admit has nothing to do with science). Amazing bit of inconsistency there.

Ok, those do look pretty inconsistent, and while I may be missing something, I can't find a way to reconcile them, so you're probably right on inconsistency here, although I doubt it was intentional.

Again, ridiculously inconsistent. Interestingly, you admit it has never failed us and it is continually tested... the obvious conclusion being that while it can't be proven true it can be proven false, i.e. falsified.

Actually, that conclusion is only "obvious" if you make the assumption in the first place. This is what you were discussing with FS in the other thread. We can never disprove the idea that the universe has order when we are using a method that assumes that such order exists. Science is not a construct apart from philosophy - it was based in philosophy itself. And like any logical construct, there are a few core assumptions - one of them being that nature is ordered and runs by certain set rules. This is an assumption that we cannot disprove, because the only way to disprove it would be for it to be true! It certainly seems to us to be that way - and we make the assumption for that reason, but the way B says we "test" it only works if we assume it in the first place.

Basically, because of the logical process of science and the assumptions in which it is based, we would never see "randomness" as actual randomness. The entire method is based in the core assumption that the universe is ordered. Thus, any new measurement that seemed to debunk a particular hypothesis of order would not be seen as debunking the very idea of order - it would simply point us in the direction of a new hypothesis. This is the very reason we cannot test "miracles." Anything that was a miracle would simply be worked into a scientific model of "how the universe works," because the entire method is based in assuming that there is a set "way the universe works."

Now, Bruarong's argument is that because science is based in this particular assumption, that it can be based in any non-falsifiable assumption. This is an illogical leap. The fact that the process is based in certain assumptions - axioms, if you will - does not mean you can make any old assumption you'd like while using the process.

Note: "Assumption" in this post has never meant "personal belief" or "expectation" or any other such thing.

You are pointing out perceived "inconsistencies" that might not be inconsistencies at all. If you try and look at things from the point of view of Bruarong's argument, no matter how wrong the argument might be, they aren't necessarily all inconsistent. Now, they might have been, but then again they might not have been.


Actually, it looks to me like he is saying he won't look for information to back up a theory he thinks is incorrect, along the lines of me saying, "I'm not going to look for a mathematical model to demonstrate the geocentric view of the Universe, because I'm pretty sure those guys are wrong."

Of course, this ignores the fact that science doesn't work by "looking for information to back up" anything, but that is one of the flaws in the argument that B makes. And, discarding evolution is not, "discarding natural causes," either. It is discarding one particular possible natural cause. It is disturbing that B does so because of his religion, but you are making the same mistake he does when you interpret, "Discard evolution" and "discard natural causes."

And I don't necessarily have a problem with not looking for information to verify a theory you don't agree with except that he states that he is not willing to explore the subject at all because he believes there is no natural cause for the current creatures on the planet (I can quote him about a dozen times on not being willing to look at pre-ancestors for man). Then he claims he never said he was unwilling to look at or for evidence of pre-ancestors. That's the inconsistent part. Before his argument was opinion and while I disagree with it, he can have his opinion. Then he started flipping it around. That makes arguing pointless, because you end up arguing against something that he said but no longer holds.

He doesn't actually say "science itself." He specifically refers to modern science, as if modern science is something different and apart from the base logic of science.

It isn't, of course, but as Bruarong's entire argument is that one need not be entirely restricted to the natural in scientific thinking, it rather makes sense that he would see "modern science" as having some additional property he doesn't agree with - one that is not a core part of science itself (something he has stated more than once)

He has stated that, but he also stated that it's not really part of science as well, thus the problem. Whenever I point out that God is allowed by science but not acknowledged he acts as if I'm violating the fundamental naturalist principles of science.

Not explicitly. It is the paper that is naturalistic, which could be a result either of the scientist herself being naturalistic or of the practice of science being naturalistic (ie. the paper being written to meet the "modern" practice of science).

Except in a conversation with you he stated that he does not view the papers as naturalistic and mentioned that the true naturalism comes out on tv shows and in articles. You remember when he said that? I'm not really willing to search out the quote unless necessary. I can find the quotes for all of this if you ask.

...which doesn't actually contradict someone saying, "The scientist is not a naturalist." I would not have to actually agree with a philosophy in order to write from the point of view of that philosophy, if I thought such a point of view was necessary to what I was writing.

Now, naturalism as B describes it is not a necessity in science, nor have I seen any evidence of it outside of a few scientists who hold the view, but do not publish it, but he seems to think that we have made it a necessity to publish.

(you have trouble remembering how to spell his name too, I'm guessing. That's why I keep calling him our friend.)

That's the point. He claimed that naturalism is a part of science but every time we point out that it isn't he says it's the scientists. It's like nailing jello to the wall.

Actually, he clearly disagrees with you here. His entire argument is that science, in practice, cannot be "pure", because it is tied up in the thinking of individuals. The idea might be, but he suggests that the practice cannot be. In fact, he point blank asks you whether you think a scientist's own philosophy will affect his thinking in science.

But that's the point. If the practice can't be pure because it's the thought-process of scientists biasing it, then he can't argue that science is biasing the scientists. Either naturalists are corrupting the science or science is forcing everyone to be naturalists. He seems to just pick whichever one of these fits the particular point he's trying to make. Again, look at the quote of him saying that science forces a scientist to be a naturalist even when they aren't and then at this point that the science in practice is corrupted by the views of the scientist. So which is it, does science overwhelm the views of the scientist with naturalism or do naturalists overwhelm pure science with their bias. Maybe naturalism is the evil blob that just consumes whatever it touches.

Meanwhile, B has yet to claim that what he calls "naturalistic thinking" or that holding "naturalistic" beliefs equates to bad science, just as he claims that supernatural thinking does not equate to bad science. On this point, he has been rather consistent - albeit wrong. Basing science around the belief that God does or does not exist or does or does not interfere with the world would be bad science - no matter what. Bruarong is claiming that neither point of view would lead to bad science. Wrong, but consistent.

I would say he is remotely consistent except he keeps claiming that he has never said that he would use science to make a case for God.

So I am not trying to make my science make a case for God, but I will allow my personal world view to influence my speculations about e.g. the origin of bacteria.

When we try to explain human consciousness, and come to the conclusion that natural causes are insufficient, we have evidence that natural causes are insufficient. This is evidence, not a lack of it. We can thus say that we have evidence that something other than natural causes may be required to explain the human consciousness. In that sense, we would have the evidence (natural causes being inadequate), rather than a lack of evidence as you are suggesting.

He is actually trying to say he has evidence for the supernatural. Later he claims it should just be labeled an area where we are ignorant, but that is clearly not what he is claiming here (this is again stemming from the tree analogy where he said he would stop exploring natural explanations because he has concluded that supernatural causes are at work.)

Ok, those do look pretty inconsistent, and while I may be missing something, I can't find a way to reconcile them, so you're probably right on inconsistency here, although I doubt it was intentional.

See, here is the problem. These are all strands in a web. One has to look at his overarching argument to see if it is actually cohesive and it's not. He argues that science allows for the falsifiable and then admits that things he calls unfalsifiable are tested every day. He claims that science cannot make a case for God and then argues that it already has and as such should no longer explore other options. He admits that being falsifiable is a requirement for science so that makes his suggestions about the supernatural not science, but then he also claims they are just as scientific as natural explanations. He calls evolution faith for not being PROVEN and then admits that nothing in science is PROVEN under the same set of rules. All of this leads to goldfishing. He says one thing. You argue it and then he's on to something else. The entire thread goes round and round and round because he acts like points that were already made haven't been.

Actually, that conclusion is only "obvious" if you make the assumption in the first place. This is what you were discussing with FS in the other thread. We can never disprove the idea that the universe has order when we are using a method that assumes that such order exists. Science is not a construct apart from philosophy - it was based in philosophy itself. And like any logical construct, there are a few core assumptions - one of them being that nature is ordered and runs by certain set rules. This is an assumption that we cannot disprove, because the only way to disprove it would be for it to be true! It certainly seems to us to be that way - and we make the assumption for that reason, but the way B says we "test" it only works if we assume it in the first place.

The basic assumption of science is just a rule. It makes no claims about what is real or fake or anything. That basic assumption is that things do not have to be proven absolutely true, but simply have to be falsifiable, based on either direct or indirect observation, capable of being tested, and have no evidence that already falsifies them. This isn't a truism about the nature of reality or the like, it's a tenet of science in and of itself. It's like declaring that 2 follows 1 when counting in whole numbers or setting the definition of the word, "splat".

Now, the 'assumption' that he is talking about holds up to that basic tenet, a tenet he acknowledges. He says it is put to the test every day and passes. It is falsifiable, based on direct observation, capable of being tested and has no evidence against it. It's not a circular argument, it simply an assumption that is valid because it fits within the rules set by science as a discipline.

Basically, because of the logical process of science and the assumptions in which it is based, we would never see "randomness" as actual randomness. The entire method is based in the core assumption that the universe is ordered. Thus, any new measurement that seemed to debunk a particular hypothesis of order would not be seen as debunking the very idea of order - it would simply point us in the direction of a new hypothesis. This is the very reason we cannot test "miracles." Anything that was a miracle would simply be worked into a scientific model of "how the universe works," because the entire method is based in assuming that there is a set "way the universe works."

See above. Also on the subject of miracles, miracles aren't worked into the model, they are simply not accounted for because whether they exist or not, we certainly have the ability to test for them since they are random. We don't assume they don't exist, however.

Now, Bruarong's argument is that because science is based in this particular assumption, that it can be based in any non-falsifiable assumption. This is an illogical leap. The fact that the process is based in certain assumptions - axioms, if you will - does not mean you can make any old assumption you'd like while using the process.

Note: "Assumption" in this post has never meant "personal belief" or "expectation" or any other such thing.

Ha. Actually, they are even better. They are the basis of science, so much so that that are not stated. The point is that the assumption is falsifiable. If we started seeing evidence that long-established conclusions simply changed then we would definitely consider that premise falsified. If F=ma suddently became f=ma^2 and we couldn't account for the change, we would absolutely have to consider it to be a falsification of the principle that things are consistent.

It's like nailing jello to the wall.And just for that, I poured a beer down the drain in your honour.

Despite your longwindedness, you do have an uncanny ability to sum things up in a single short sentence :p

And I don't necessarily have a problem with not looking for information to verify a theory you don't agree with except that he states that he is not willing to explore the subject at all because he believes there is no natural cause for the current creatures on the planet (I can quote him about a dozen times on not being willing to look at pre-ancestors for man)...
His whole post there was an "example" (quoting him, directly) that was intended to demonstrate a process that would lead a person of a particular belief to a particular conclusion. He used the first person singular form to do this.

His whole post there was an "example" (quoting him, directly) that was intended to demonstrate a process that would lead a person of a particular belief to a particular conclusion. He used the first person singular form to do this.

I understood it was an example, but he was stating how he excercises the scientific method. He considers refusing to test your conclusion to be scientific.

And just for that, I poured a beer down the drain in your honour.

Despite your longwindedness, you do have an uncanny ability to sum things up in a single short sentence :p

By the way, I am definitely going to try and get 'goldfishing' to catch on.

And I don't necessarily have a problem with not looking for information to verify a theory you don't agree with except that he states that he is not willing to explore the subject at all because he believes there is no natural cause for the current creatures on the planet (I can quote him about a dozen times on not being willing to look at pre-ancestors for man). Then he claims he never said he was unwilling to look at or for evidence of pre-ancestors. That's the inconsistent part. Before his argument was opinion and while I disagree with it, he can have his opinion. Then he started flipping it around. That makes arguing pointless, because you end up arguing against something that he said but no longer holds.

I think the problem is that he doesn't see a difference between them. We do - obviously - I've had this argument with B at least 5 times in the past. But it isn't that he is flipping it around really - he sees it as part and parcel of the same thing, as far as I can tell. He thinks it is perfectly consistent and logical to say, "I don't discount natural causes, just *this* natural cause, so I have backed up my belief that God did it." *shrug*

He has stated that, but he also stated that it's not really part of science as well, thus the problem. Whenever I point out that God is allowed by science but not acknowledged he acts as if I'm violating the fundamental naturalist principles of science.

I think the problem is that he is making a distinction between "modern" science and science itself - as the method was derived. He thinks that, because past scientists were perhaps more vocal in their lives about their personal beliefs, or because they felt that they had less of the world explained, that "old", "true" science allowed for more "God" in the science. "Modern" science, on the other hand, has been twisted by "naturalism" so that it now includes naturalistic principles it didn't in the past.

Except in a conversation with you he stated that he does not view the papers as naturalistic and mentioned that the true naturalism comes out on tv shows and in articles. You remember when he said that? I'm not really willing to search out the quote unless necessary. I can find the quotes for all of this if you ask.

IIRC, what he said was that the papers do not explicitly state naturalism, while scientists explicitly state it in shows and articles. For example, I once met a scientist (no joke here) - a physicist - who claimed he could "disprove God" with physics. He never made that claim in a paper (obviously), but he did claim it at a seminar. I think what B has been saying is that you can get a sense of the thinking in papers, although it isn't explicitly stated, but that some do state it outside of their science.

IIRC, I tried to point out that what they say in interviews isn't a part of their science, any more than me talking about theology in an interview would be, but he thinks that their viewpoints can't help but "leak" into their science, I think.

(you have trouble remembering how to spell his name too, I'm guessing. That's why I keep calling him our friend.)

Nah, I'm just lazy - and just saying "B" is so much easier, hehe.

That's the point. He claimed that naturalism is a part of science but every time we point out that it isn't he says it's the scientists. It's like nailing jello to the wall.

This is another point he and I have gone around and around on. He doesn't see "science" as something separate from "scientists". So, to him, if most scientists are naturalists or have been taught naturalistic thinking, science will become naturalistic. On the other hand, I suppose, if most scientists were Christian or had been taught Christian thinking, science would be come Christian. The obvious problem with this is that most scientists are not naturalists - and it isn't that we have been taught "naturalistic thinking" so much as having been taught the very logic upon which science is based.

But that's the point. If the practice can't be pure because it's the thought-process of scientists biasing it, then he can't argue that science is biasing the scientists. Either naturalists are corrupting the science or science is forcing everyone to be naturalists.

It could be a bit of both. Naturalists bias the science and teach their "naturalist" viewpoint to other scientists who, even though they don't ascribe to the philosophy, use the viewpoint in their science, and so on and so on....

Of course, the obvious problem is that there is a simultaneous claim that he cannot separate his personal religion/philosophy from his science - while claiming that these other scientists can. I don't know if that means they have more willpower or less than him.

I would say he is remotely consistent except he keeps claiming that he has never said that he would use science to make a case for God.

He hasn't, not explicitly. He doesn't seem to see that there is no logical difference between "using science to make a case for God," and "using God as the basis of science." The latter would require the former, but, no matter how many times I explain it, it doesn't seem to get through.

The basic assumption of science is just a rule. It makes no claims about what is real or fake or anything. That basic assumption is that things do not have to be proven absolutely true, but simply have to be falsifiable, based on either direct or indirect observation, capable of being tested, and have no evidence that already falsifies them.

That isn't an assumption of science - it is a logical restriction on the process.

The only core assumption of science is that the universe is ordered. Something cannot be falsified by experiment unless the universe is ordered. If there is no order, then an experiment which falsifies something might support it the next time around, because the entire thing would be random. If the universe is ordered, we can say, "The sun has risen on the East and set to the West every single time we have checked it. I have seen no reason to suggest that it won't. Therefore, can logically assume that it will do the same thing tomorrow. If it isn't, then no matter how many times something happens, it is just as logical to say it will do something different as to say it will do the same.

See above. Also on the subject of miracles, miracles aren't worked into the model, they are simply not accounted for because whether they exist or not, we certainly have the ability to test for them since they are random. We don't assume they don't exist, however.

That's exactly what I'm saying! If we took measurements of something that was actually God's own hand doing something, from a scientific viewpoint, it would seem like simply "part of the way the world works." Even if God has to think about it and cause gravity every single time it happens (thus making it supernatural and a "miracle"), we measure it as if it is just happening as part of the natural order. Thus, even if God is personally directing it every time, we account for it in our models as natural.

The same goes for evolution. Many people believe in "directed" evolution - that evolutionary process was used but that God directed it. Science, obviously, does not ascribe to this, but we also do not say that God did not. We leave God out. But even if God personally caused all or some of the mutations - thus making it a supernatural occurrence - we would still measure them as if they were part of the natural order.

Ha. Actually, they are even better. They are the basis of science, so much so that that are not stated. The point is that the assumption is falsifiable. If we started seeing evidence that long-established conclusions simply changed then we would definitely consider that premise falsified. If F=ma suddently became f=ma^2 and we couldn't account for the change, we would absolutely have to consider it to be a falsification of the principle that things are consistent.

The problem is that science only works if things are consistent. If there is no order to the universe, then the entire process of science is useless. Only if that order is there can we say, "The theory of relativity has worked in every test, thus we have supported it." If there were no order, we'd just say, "Wow, the random number generator sure seems to be coming up with the theory of relativity a lot these days."