Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Modern creationism makes no sense

Page 25 of 29 [ 456 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Jun 2010, 7:17 pm

AngelRho wrote:
AG answered the question--if science/logic cannot reveal something, then it does not exist (I'm paraphrasing to be a bit more precise since AG's answer appears somewhat wishy-washy--let me know if that changes the meaning too much). I'm confident in rewording it as such because if something does not exist, then no, we should not believe it. So my paraphrase is a distillation.

Unless I misread AG, that is not what he said. Rather, I read his stance as being that if science/logic cannot demonstrate something, then it probably does not exist and we should ignore it until further evidence comes forth.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Jun 2010, 9:03 pm

Orwell wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
AG answered the question--if science/logic cannot reveal something, then it does not exist (I'm paraphrasing to be a bit more precise since AG's answer appears somewhat wishy-washy--let me know if that changes the meaning too much). I'm confident in rewording it as such because if something does not exist, then no, we should not believe it. So my paraphrase is a distillation.

Unless I misread AG, that is not what he said. Rather, I read his stance as being that if science/logic cannot demonstrate something, then it probably does not exist and we should ignore it until further evidence comes forth.

Right Orwell, your reading is better than AngelRho's. Part of the matter is that I would imagine that I seemed "wishy washy" because I didn't interpret "can't" the same way AngelRho meant it. For instance by how I read it, using 19th century science we can't study black holes, but 20th century science tells us that they probably do exist, but by AngelRho's interpretation, "can't" refers to things beyond the limits of even a hypothetical science.

Also, it is correct to recognize that I don't claim that anything undetectable by science/logic does not exist, I just claim it should not be believed to exist. The difference is subtle, but important, as it is a point of logic to show that logic and science do not necessarily prove all existing things, but it is reasonable to hold that what our valid methods of finding truth do not show perhaps should not be believed to exist, just as most of us don't believe we are surrounded by invisible gnomes.



Poke
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2009
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 605

07 Jun 2010, 7:06 am

Theists: people who are more comfortable saying "A wizard did it" than "I don't know"



jc6chan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,257
Location: Waterloo, ON, Canada

07 Jun 2010, 7:15 am

Poke wrote:
Theists: people who are more comfortable saying "A wizard did it" than "I don't know"

Whats wrong with that? Change the word "wizard" to "God".



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 7:36 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Orwell wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
AG answered the question--if science/logic cannot reveal something, then it does not exist (I'm paraphrasing to be a bit more precise since AG's answer appears somewhat wishy-washy--let me know if that changes the meaning too much). I'm confident in rewording it as such because if something does not exist, then no, we should not believe it. So my paraphrase is a distillation.

Unless I misread AG, that is not what he said. Rather, I read his stance as being that if science/logic cannot demonstrate something, then it probably does not exist and we should ignore it until further evidence comes forth.

Right Orwell, your reading is better than AngelRho's. Part of the matter is that I would imagine that I seemed "wishy washy" because I didn't interpret "can't" the same way AngelRho meant it. For instance by how I read it, using 19th century science we can't study black holes, but 20th century science tells us that they probably do exist, but by AngelRho's interpretation, "can't" refers to things beyond the limits of even a hypothetical science.

Also, it is correct to recognize that I don't claim that anything undetectable by science/logic does not exist, I just claim it should not be believed to exist. The difference is subtle, but important, as it is a point of logic to show that logic and science do not necessarily prove all existing things, but it is reasonable to hold that what our valid methods of finding truth do not show perhaps should not be believed to exist, just as most of us don't believe we are surrounded by invisible gnomes.


OK, I think I almost get it. Science "as-is" isn't quite so hard and fast; you said it's "contingent" on future discoveries.

I could ALMOST find that acceptable, because as a Christian, this idea DOES allow for the existence of God. It does so on the basis of, for the sake of argument, the truth that IF God does exist, it may POSSIBLY be proven that God exists (someday). One may conceivably maintain one's faith to guard against Hell "just in case," but the ultimate proof (if there is to be any) is yet to come.

What YOU'RE saying is that such a belief ought to be ignored or, as AG put it, not believed at all until evidence to the contrary sufficiently supports such an idea, correct?

That's the question, and I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.

The problem I have with this is that conversation between theology and science is essentially a monologue; theology just has to wait until "one day" the science supports it. I'm sure you can understand why this is unacceptable to a Christian, or really anyone of any kind of faith.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Jun 2010, 7:58 am

richardbenson wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
richardbenson wrote:
yes we know dude. a volcano can add alot of debries in a short period of time, making it look like millions of years. but there was not a worldwide flood atleast not with humanity on board. if anything the flood was localized and very devistating


RichardBenson, if you are referring to Dr Austin's work regarding Mt Saint Helens, the formation of layers then was not inductively generalized to say that it was all due to volcanism. Certainly volcanism would have been involved with the continental plates moving apart from the supercontinent (as it is in most models of how the flood occurred, regardless of whether to proposed mechanism is runaway subduction or not), but that the strata have the ability to be laid rapidly as demonstrated even 30 years ago by Mount St Helens. There have been many other experiments done to show the rapid formation of strata possible (in the Technical Journal of Creation, I think one from the early 90's) by water at various flow rates and mixture levels. The example of the volcanic strata is good as an example of it not just being in the laboratory only that strata can be made quickly.
i respect your christian views now but you really are a fool if you think the earth is only 10,000 years old.
civilization is about that old


If civilization were an order of magnitude older than that, then that would falsify what I believe.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

07 Jun 2010, 9:21 am

AngelRho wrote:
What YOU'RE saying is that such a belief ought to be ignored or, as AG put it, not believed at all until evidence to the contrary sufficiently supports such an idea, correct?

I was just describing what I thought AG had said, since it seemed you might have misunderstood him. I don't have to share his stance. As a Christian, I believe things that I cannot prove.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 9:38 am

Orwell wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
What YOU'RE saying is that such a belief ought to be ignored or, as AG put it, not believed at all until evidence to the contrary sufficiently supports such an idea, correct?

I was just describing what I thought AG had said, since it seemed you might have misunderstood him. I don't have to share his stance. As a Christian, I believe things that I cannot prove.


As do I. And I probably DID misunderstand, and I'm only digging to try to understand what AG means. My first question was BASICALLY "Does something not exist if it can't be proven?" Speaking in objective, scientific terms, of course. And by "proven," I guess I really mean "tested," as nothing seems to really be proven beyond what evidence reveals about it. I can't, for example, "prove" that such an invisible thing such as gravity exists. I can, however, test the LAW of gravity in the sense I can drop an object and observe that it falls EVERY SINGLE TIME. I can also drop a rubber ball, which seems to initially defy gravity by bouncing, yet the amplitude of each bounce decreases exponentially as the ball loses energy until, perhaps, ground resistance renders the ball stationery. If there is no force that accomplishes this, that which we call gravity, then the ball (or any other object) should remain motionless relative to its position with the earth. If I were to apply some energy to the ball, I should expect to see it continue on linearly ("an object in motion stays in motion"). For both to be true, they cannot be mutually exclusive. The ball motionless on the ground can't truly be motionless (and we know that it is not). I have not scientifically "proven" these ideas, but the evidence in their favor is certainly convincing.

So AG's idea is that something should not be believed until some means, whether present or future, provides testable evidence (or a way to test evidence)? Is that about right?



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

07 Jun 2010, 9:54 am

Quote:
What YOU'RE saying is that such a belief ought to be ignored or, as AG put it, not believed at all until evidence to the contrary sufficiently supports such an idea, correct?


AngelRho wrote:
So AG's idea is that something should not be believed until some means, whether present or future, provides testable evidence (or a way to test evidence)? Is that about right?


Right. Ideas that give no falsifiable / verifiable are to vague to believe.

AngelRho wrote:
The problem I have with this is that conversation between theology and science is essentially a monologue; theology just has to wait until "one day" the science supports it. I'm sure you can understand why this is unacceptable to a Christian, or really anyone of any kind of faith.


Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?

AngelRho wrote:
01001011 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Before I continue on, I should probably ask who here does NOT believe in ANYTHING that is unseen--that means ANYTHING. If science can't prove or at least show that something exists, then it does not exist, nor can it. It is, therefore, untrue. Any takers?


Do you believe there is an invisible fire breathing dragon standing at your back that can roast you alive anytime? Why?

Quote:
There are, however, enough problems with science in general that it can't be relied upon as much as some of those here seem to believe.


And you think a magic book written by people 2000 years ago more reliable?


Binarydude:

You chose to address me and the questions I asked. Don't ask ME what I think... Answer the question yourself.

AG answered the question--if science/logic cannot reveal something, then it does not exist (I'm paraphrasing to be a bit more precise since AG's answer appears somewhat wishy-washy--let me know if that changes the meaning too much). I'm confident in rewording it as such because if something does not exist, then no, we should not believe it. So my paraphrase is a distillation. I've seen ruveyn to be much more precise, so before I continue, I want to make sure these terms are perfectly clear.

Greenblue also seems to me to be in concurrence.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 10:06 am

01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?


To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.



01001011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Mar 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 991

07 Jun 2010, 10:17 am

AngelRho wrote:
01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?


To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.


Believing anything as invisible as the fire breathing dragon is as silly as believing the invisible fire breathing dragon. Maybe you think that believing the invisible fire breathing dragon is not silly. I can't know without asking you.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

07 Jun 2010, 10:49 am

AngelRho wrote:
OK, I think I almost get it. Science "as-is" isn't quite so hard and fast; you said it's "contingent" on future discoveries.

I could ALMOST find that acceptable, because as a Christian, this idea DOES allow for the existence of God. It does so on the basis of, for the sake of argument, the truth that IF God does exist, it may POSSIBLY be proven that God exists (someday). One may conceivably maintain one's faith to guard against Hell "just in case," but the ultimate proof (if there is to be any) is yet to come.

What YOU'RE saying is that such a belief ought to be ignored or, as AG put it, not believed at all until evidence to the contrary sufficiently supports such an idea, correct?

That's the question, and I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.

Right, a belief in God ought to be ignored until supported by evidence. It also certainly should be ignored if opposed in some form or fashion by evidence.(I argue that the Christian God is both unsupported and somewhat opposed by the evidence)

Quote:
The problem I have with this is that conversation between theology and science is essentially a monologue; theology just has to wait until "one day" the science supports it. I'm sure you can understand why this is unacceptable to a Christian, or really anyone of any kind of faith.

Well, I can understand that, but given that I consider this a simple matter of epistemic hygiene, you must understand this is why I consider believers to be ridiculous, foolish, and even a little dishonest. I mean, their defense is arguing that while science has no evidence, logical arguments from philosophy do, the problem is that all of these arguments fail. Thus, I just see this as poor truth-finding. Our dialogue with the truth is in some sense a monologue as well, in that the truth always has the last word on what it is, and even though people of faith may dislike that, the truth is true.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 11:36 am

01001011 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?


To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.


Believing anything as invisible as the fire breathing dragon is as silly as believing the invisible fire breathing dragon. Maybe you think that believing the invisible fire breathing dragon is not silly. I can't know without asking you.


That is true. You can't know without asking me. But what I believe is not the issue. What is important is that YOU believe that anything such as your dragon is silly.

Binary, tell me this: Why do you think that believing in anything invisible is silly?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Jun 2010, 11:54 am

AngelRho wrote:
01001011 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?


To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.


Believing anything as invisible as the fire breathing dragon is as silly as believing the invisible fire breathing dragon. Maybe you think that believing the invisible fire breathing dragon is not silly. I can't know without asking you.


That is true. You can't know without asking me. But what I believe is not the issue. What is important is that YOU believe that anything such as your dragon is silly.

Binary, tell me this: Why do you think that believing in anything invisible is silly?


AngelRho, it is a method of argumentation by ridicule. Believing in invisible things isn't silly, as such things like gases in air and most spectra of electromagnetic radiation are quite invisible to us. Also, some things which are unverifiable are also invisible, such as dark matter. But, of course, the purpose of adjective usage is in this type of debate tactic is independent of the meaning of the adjective so much as it is actually dependent upon the pejorative connotations of the adjective.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Jun 2010, 12:02 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
01001011 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?


To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.


Believing anything as invisible as the fire breathing dragon is as silly as believing the invisible fire breathing dragon. Maybe you think that believing the invisible fire breathing dragon is not silly. I can't know without asking you.


That is true. You can't know without asking me. But what I believe is not the issue. What is important is that YOU believe that anything such as your dragon is silly.

Binary, tell me this: Why do you think that believing in anything invisible is silly?


AngelRho, it is a method of argumentation by ridicule. Believing in invisible things isn't silly, as such things like gases in air and most spectra of electromagnetic radiation are quite invisible to us. Also, some things which are unverifiable are also invisible, such as dark matter. But, of course, the purpose of adjective usage is in this type of debate tactic is independent of the meaning of the adjective so much as it is actually dependent upon the pejorative connotations of the adjective.


:lol: That much I gathered, 'keet. But Binary is the one who said it. He is, therefore, responsible for it. If that is how he truly feels, because we have no indication or reason to believe he feels any other way, he should answer for himself, don't you think?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

07 Jun 2010, 12:06 pm

AngelRho wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
01001011 wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
01001011 wrote:

Doing the otherwise is silly. Don''t you see the point of my reply?


To be fair, Binary, you didn't really reply. You just asked questions, and I'm not at the moment inclined to accept a question as an answer.


Believing anything as invisible as the fire breathing dragon is as silly as believing the invisible fire breathing dragon. Maybe you think that believing the invisible fire breathing dragon is not silly. I can't know without asking you.


That is true. You can't know without asking me. But what I believe is not the issue. What is important is that YOU believe that anything such as your dragon is silly.

Binary, tell me this: Why do you think that believing in anything invisible is silly?


AngelRho, it is a method of argumentation by ridicule. Believing in invisible things isn't silly, as such things like gases in air and most spectra of electromagnetic radiation are quite invisible to us. Also, some things which are unverifiable are also invisible, such as dark matter. But, of course, the purpose of adjective usage is in this type of debate tactic is independent of the meaning of the adjective so much as it is actually dependent upon the pejorative connotations of the adjective.


:lol: That much I gathered, 'keet. But Binary is the one who said it. He is, therefore, responsible for it. If that is how he truly feels, because we have no indication or reason to believe he feels any other way, he should answer for himself, don't you think?


I suppose he should answer for himself. Sorry. I suppose I'm just getting used to the feeling of being ganged up upon again, so that I've forgotten what fairness feels like in order to provide it.