Evolution vs Baraminology: the empirical showdown.

Page 10 of 11 [ 176 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

23 Jul 2011, 4:39 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Thanks for finding the link Arthur Dent.

no probs, I have a standing bet with FUZZY that no matter what you are shown you will never give up on creationism, so I would like to see this one resolved, then I think I can call the case closed and a charity of my choice gets a donation :wink:

edit = missing grammar

What about the other way around? If shown evidence in opposition to the atheistic scenario of origins wouldn't you also not accept it? Would you or would you dispute it until those presenting it stopped bothering to care what you think anymore?

blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

23 Jul 2011, 5:03 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

What about the other way around? If shown evidence in opposition to the atheistic scenario of origins wouldn't you also not accept it?

Here goes you answser to your question: Evolution is falsifiable.

Quote:

Would you or would you dispute it until those presenting it stopped bothering to care what you think anymore?

Same as you would dispute heliocentrism?

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jul 2011, 6:16 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Thanks for finding the link Arthur Dent.

edit = missing grammar

You speculating that I would behave in this manner do not surprise me, your belief in creationism is so irrational that you assume that anyone with the opposing view will also behave as irrationally.

The reason I accept Evolution to be fact is a very simple one, EVIDENCE! reams and reams of EVIDENCE! if there was a discovery which falsified Evolution and it was repeatedly verified using accepted scientific principles and protocol then I would have no choice but to accept the fact, as would Dawkins and the vast majority of the scientific community.

As to my atheism it is quite simple really, I refuse to believe in something so subjective for which there is absolutely no evidence. To my mind the opposite is is far more probable the subjective stories of believers like yourself can very easily be explained via our understanding of delusion and hallucination. Again present EVIDENCE to the contrary and I will have no choice but to take notice.

My acceptance of Evolution and non belief in god has nothing to do with dogma, instead it is anchored in factual evidence and rational thinking.

_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx

blunnet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,053

23 Jul 2011, 6:26 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

My acceptance of Evolution and non belief in god has nothing to do with dogma, instead it is anchored in factual evidence and rational thinking.

"atheistic scenario of origins " or evolution being "atheistic" is nonsense spouted by creationists regarding evolution, actually it is a strawman, as the theory doesn't have anything to do with the existence of a deity or its possible existence or its nature, or its name, etc.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

23 Jul 2011, 7:32 pm

blunnet wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

My acceptance of Evolution and non belief in god has nothing to do with dogma, instead it is anchored in factual evidence and rational thinking.

Unfortunately, partisanship abounds. The straw is chawed on by two asses, as ass A says "they don't mention God so them atheists out to git us," and ass B says "We don;t need no stinking God so that proves there ain't so sich a critter"

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jul 2011, 8:24 pm

Philologos wrote:

Crap, the reason for non belief in god has nothing to do with need, rather it has to do with probabilities, it is fallacious to say you cannot falsify god therefore the probability of its existence is 50%, the evidence so far points away from the likely hood of an interventionist god, we are beginning to unravel the marvels of nature, which means the place once held in the minds of man for god is also being falsified, now some will call this a strawman as 'how do I know that god is not behind a facade pulling all the strings of nature furiously trying to keep pace with all the developments', to them I would suggest a better place to look for answers is the psychologist couch, or at least the studies and theories on Cognitive dissonance, the brains ability to delude, hallucinate, and its poor record in perception and observation.

cave_canem
Deinonychus

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

23 Jul 2011, 9:04 pm

blunnet wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

My acceptance of Evolution and non belief in god has nothing to do with dogma, instead it is anchored in factual evidence and rational thinking.

Agreed.

I know many christians who believe in evolution - and believe God has had a part (sometimes small, sometimes large) in directing it. I would describe myself as agnostic, and a believer in evolution.

Belief or non-belief in God does not dictate one's belief in evolution.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

23 Jul 2011, 9:37 pm

cave_canem wrote:

blunnet wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

My acceptance of Evolution and non belief in god has nothing to do with dogma, instead it is anchored in factual evidence and rational thinking.

I am getting the impression that you think my non belief in god is linked to my acceptance of evolution, its not. The two are very distinct issues, The only blurring of the lines being that evolution possibly adds evidence to the argument that god is not interventionist.

cave_canem
Deinonychus

Joined: 14 Nov 2009
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 378
Location: Canada

23 Jul 2011, 9:44 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:

cave_canem wrote:

blunnet wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

My acceptance of Evolution and non belief in god has nothing to do with dogma, instead it is anchored in factual evidence and rational thinking.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. My apologies.

I understand what you are saying, and I did not think you were saying otherwise.

But my post was in response to blunnet's - an attempt to provide additional support to the assertion that the evolution and existence of God issues are separate.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

23 Jul 2011, 9:49 pm

I will chime here to attest that in my atheist days the divine entity question and the origin of species questions were not interlocking.

As today the two are as independent as the structure of human folk tale communication and the sunspot cycle. [At least I think for the present that those are independent]

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

24 Jul 2011, 1:42 am

blunnet wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

What about the other way around? If shown evidence in opposition to the atheistic scenario of origins wouldn't you also not accept it?

Here goes you answser to your question: Evolution is falsifiable.

Quote:

Would you or would you dispute it until those presenting it stopped bothering to care what you think anymore?

Same as you would dispute heliocentrism?

1. Karl Popper disagreed with you about evolution being falsifiable.

2. You don't know me whatsoever.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

24 Jul 2011, 1:45 am

cave_canem wrote:

blunnet wrote:

DentArthurDent wrote:

My acceptance of Evolution and non belief in god has nothing to do with dogma, instead it is anchored in factual evidence and rational thinking.

Yes, however evolution and abiogenesis are required for an atheistic historical scenario regardless of whether or not theists are able to fit them into their belief systems.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

24 Jul 2011, 6:18 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Yes, however evolution and abiogenesis are required for an atheistic historical scenario regardless of whether or not theists are able to fit them into their belief systems.

That is one way of looking at it and quite typical of a creationist arguing against non belief IE "you think evolution is a provable fact based upon scientific kowledge but abiogenisis goes against all known science and yet you accept it" I prefer my take on the mater ; "Evolution is a fact but I have no idea how the universe/multiverse came into being, this lack of knowledge in no way gives credence to the god hypothesis and I await with baited breath the answer"

Our knowledge of the brain and psychology is basic in comparison to the rest of the human anatomy and physiology, yet we are very aware of delusional states, cognitive dissonance and hallucination. All of which adequately take care of supposed 'godly euphoria'.

I simply accept that we do not know the answer to 'life, the universe, and everything?' and will never invoke god to fill in the gaps, unless empirical evidence strongly suggests I do so.

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

24 Jul 2011, 6:24 am

Philologos, thank you for taking the time to explain your statement.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 83
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

24 Jul 2011, 7:49 am

DentArthurDent wrote:

Yes.

Science - including Theology which properly practiced IS a science - will ALWAYS in the Kosmoshave a dangling carrot to pursue - a hypothesized or observed something which we have reason to believe is so but which we do not - YET - have the tools and the groundwork to understand. That is why science keeps going, not to get more stuff to sell to the gullible. We want the knowledge in that carrot to feed our fires.

We do NOT know the final answer [do you know, as I am sure Brother Adams did, the sci fi story where intelligence life over the ages asks the State of the Art Computer the Answer, and gets "Insufficient Data" till the Ultimate Computer, asked THE Question at the end of the Universe, calculates the Answer and prbounces "Let there be Light"?].

My summation puts God into the data stack - which leaves us with an additional set of gaps.

Note that too many people fill in the gaps in our understanding of God with assumptions that HE is just ME in a Superman suit - adding circularity to the problematic outcome.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

24 Jul 2011, 9:53 am

Philologos wrote:

Yes.

Science - including Theology which properly practiced IS a science - w

Is not! No theological proposition can be falsified empirically. Thus it is not a science.

It might take the form of a philosophy, but philosophy is also not empirically falsifiable.

ruveyn

Page 10 of 11 [ 176 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Jump to:

Evolution vs Baraminology: the empirical showdown. Post Reply New Topic

Evolution vs Baraminology: the empirical showdown.