In Case You Missed It...

[Stratnerd]

lighthouse,

And this I believe. But it can not be proven that humans share an ancestor with apes. Or that all that exists shares a common ancestor.

this is a historical question and is beyond "proof" but you can falsify this hypothesis, which is what I was asking for from the beginning.

Exactly.

If you agree then why we're you asking for emperical proof????????

so we're all agreed that creation and evolution (in the sense of explaining diversity) are beyond "proof" and we must rely inference and falsification and/or a competing hypotheses framework. great! so I'll ask again, do any data falsify evolution?

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

lighthouse,

this is a historical question and is beyond "proof" but you can falsify this hypothesis, which is what I was asking for from the beginning.

If you agree then why we're you asking for emperical proof????????

so we're all agreed that creation and evolution (in the sense of explaining diversity) are beyond "proof" and we must rely inference and falsification and/or a competing hypotheses framework. great! so I'll ask again, do any data falsify evolution?

Evolution which is physical, by defenition, can not be proven physically. It can't be proven at all. It hasn't been proven to you, yet you believe it.:doh:

What sense does that make?!

P.S.
I wasn't actually asking for proof.

 

[Stratnerd]

Evolution which is physical, by defenition, can not be proven physically. It can't be proven at all. It hasn't been proven to you, yet you believe it. What sense does that make?!

I "believe" it because evolution explains diversity, distributions, relationships (among organisms) much better than any other explanation.

NO HISTORICAL EXPLANATION CAN BE PROVEN! So what we believe happened must be based on inference (if you're into that) or a religious text (if you're into that). But it's obvious that the two don't jive and I'll take inference over religious dogma.

 

[Jukia]

Are stratnerd and lighthouse in the same conversation. Strat is looking for falsification and light is looking for proof. Seems like apples and oranges to me.

 

[Caine]

Originally posted by jjjg

Caine, that's all I simply said is that God or atheism are metaphysical questions.

I never said the existence of the universe does not fall into physics.

I think you are confusing ideas here. Given the question; "Is/Are there (a) God(s)".

Naturalism is not an answer to a metaphysical question. Because we know that the physical universe exists. And it makes no comment on this question because it does not deal with the metaphysical.

Aetheism answers the metaphysical question in the negative by saying no evidence for is evidence against a non-material world.

Theism answers the metaphysical question with a variety of different referrences to the affirmative.

Agnosticism postpones any judgement on this issue until a later date.

You seem to be wanting to use naturalism and aetheism as synonyms, when they are not. As well as clumping agnosticism into this already muddied mentation.

I am a theist because I want to believe that there is something else other than the physical. I do not fool myself by answering this metaphysical question with anything other than my own desire. And I do not expect all other people to have this desire. Nor am I offended or frustrated when I come in contact with those who do not have this desire.

 

[jjjg]

Actually naturalism is a metaphysical argument that can be for or against God and for or against dualism but it does ask the question is there one substance matter or mind and matter in the universe.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

I "believe" it because evolution explains diversity, distributions, relationships (among organisms) much better than any other explanation.

NO HISTORICAL EXPLANATION CAN BE PROVEN! So what we believe happened must be based on inference (if you're into that) or a religious text (if you're into that). But it's obvious that the two don't jive and I'll take inference over religious dogma.

You don't think religious dogma is inference? Then what is it? I, of course, believe it to be true. And that is due to its being proven to me. Evolution has not been proven, only inferred. And, no matter how hard they look they still haven't found the "missing link."

Jukia-
I'm not looking for proof. I know it can't be proven. And never will be. In fact, I know it will be falsified, once and for all, when the Lord returns in glory.

 

[aharvey]

Originally posted by Jukia

Are stratnerd and lighthouse in the same conversation. Strat is looking for falsification and light is looking for proof. Seems like apples and oranges to me.

Although it's usually not very productive, sometimes I get interesting insights when I poke around other threads. For example, let me just copy and paste in here something from a thread involving LH in the General Theology forum:

"

Originally posted by lighthouse

You moron!

I can't prove it to you. Actually, I can't prove it to anyone. But not because it can't be proven. I can't prove it, because it is not mine to prove.

I believe it because it has been proven to me. And it was proven by God, Himself. Because I sought Him out.

Xior,

Read the above post very carefully. Lighthouse is telling you flat out that the proof you seek cannot be provided by the people from whom you demand it. The supernatural realm does not, by definition, have to play by the same rules as the natural realm. In the supernatural realm there is no equivalent of a mathematical proof that can be laid out for all to see. God's existence can only be proven by God Himself, and only on an individual basis. So you have no choice but to take Lighthouse's word that God has proven Himself to Lighthouse. You are of course free to suspect that Lighthouse may be overstating his case, misinterpreting a drug interaction effect, or whatever, and Lighthouse would have no way of disproving that either!

Ironically, there is no strict contradiction with the very same Lighthouse turning around and demanding "proof" of evolution, and refusing to accept the reality of evolution until someone "proves" it to him. "Proof" regarding the supernatural is completely different from "proof" regarding the natural. With respect to evolution, Lighthouse expects something completely different from what y'all are arguing about here. It's mostly just unfortunate word choice (i.e., using the same word to mean two completely different things), but it is yet another illustration of why scientists can make no assumptions about the supernatural when investigating the natural world."

Unfortunately, in this thread Lighthouse seems to be confusing himself by equating the two versions of "proof." Now that's ironic! And he, like Nineveh and so many others here, seems impervious to the notion that "proof" is in the purview of mathematics, not science.

 

[Caine]

Originally posted by jjjg

Actually naturalism is a metaphysical argument that can be for or against God and for or against dualism but it does ask the question is there one substance matter or mind and matter in the universe.

The way you phrased your question is problematic. Asking Is their only matter or is their mind and matter in the universe?" is misleading. Because both atheists and spiritualists agree that there is both. Wouldn't a better qusetion be; "Can/Does mind exist anywhere in the universe independant of matter/energy?" And I will say again, that currently science cannot answer this question.

I also agree that naturalism can be used as an argument for or against God. But this need not be the case. In fact, I find using naturalism as evidence against God to be as problematic as using naturalism as evidence for God. True (material) science should be agnostic. This is the most objective position. I am as distrustful of arguments that use naturalism to disprove God as I am of those that use naturalism to prove God.

 

[Stratnerd]

You don't think religious dogma is inference? Then what is it?

I don't know what it is.

Inference: Earth is ~ 6 Gya based on radiometric dating. This can change based on new data.
Bible: Earth is 6000 based on text. This cannot change.

And that is due to its being proven to me.

They've proved Genesis to be true? When?

And, no matter how hard they look they still haven't found the "missing link."

There's no "THE" missing link.. there are lots of them. To claim the claim there's isn't is either based on deception or ignorance.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

Inference: Earth is ~ 6 Gya based on radiometric dating. This can change based on new data.
Bible: Earth is 6000 based on text. This cannot change.

Nope. Nowhere in the Bible can one show that the earth is 6,000 years old.

There's no "THE" missing link.. there are lots of them. To claim the claim there's isn't is either based on deception or ignorance.

That's what your claims would be based on. :kookoo:

 

[Stratnerd]

Nope. Nowhere in the Bible can one show that the earth is 6,000 years old.

so that number was pulled out of the air or was it estimated from geneology, etc? that's a rhetorical statement of course because we know where that # comes from and it is geneology and, no, it can't and won't ever change so it isn't inference.

That's what your claims would be based on.

please post content and not just these simple statements that are a waste of everyone's time. Evolution statements about missing links are not based on deception. There were a few hoaxes perpetrated by non-scientists for profit and these were ALL uncovered by evolutionary biologists not creationists. "Missing links" are found alive and in the fossil record. Again, to claim they don't exist is ignorance or deception or both.

 

[jjjg]

Caine, that is probably a better way to word the question.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

I don't know what it is.

Judeo-Christian Creationism is based on the Biblical text. But, to those who don't believe it, it is inference, is it not?

Inference: Earth is ~ 6 Gya based on radiometric dating. This can change based on new data.
Bible: Earth is 6000 based on text. This cannot change.

What text? You said, in your response to Frank, that it was based on geneaology. But how do we know enough details of geneaology to make that guess? And why does the things earth is made from being 6 Gya [whatever that means] mean that the Earth is the same? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just asking a question.

They've proved Genesis to be true? When?

When did I say, "they?" I never said who proved it to me. Not in here, anyway.

There's no "THE" missing link.. there are lots of them. To claim the claim there's isn't is either based on deception or ignorance.

Where are they? Where are the missing links?

 

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Stratnerd

so that number was pulled out of the air or was it estimated from geneology, etc? that's a rhetorical statement of course because we know where that # comes from and it is geneology and, no, it can't and won't ever change so it isn't inference.

:cow:

please post content and not just these simple statements that are a waste of everyone's time. Evolution statements about missing links are not based on deception. There were a few hoaxes perpetrated by non-scientists for profit and these were ALL uncovered by evolutionary biologists not creationists. "Missing links" are found alive and in the fossil record. Again, to claim they don't exist is ignorance or deception or both.

Again, that's what your claims are based upon.

 

[Stratnerd]

Judeo-Christian Creationism is based on the Biblical text. But, to those who don't believe it, it is inference, is it not?

Nope, it's still the text.

What text? You said, in your response to Frank, that it was based on geneaology. But how do we know enough details of geneaology to make that guess?

Ask the theologian Ussher that did the calculations based on geneologies presented in Genesis and the following chapters.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/archbishop.asp

And why does the things earth is made from being 6 Gya [whatever that means] mean that the Earth is the same? I'm not saying it isn't, I'm just asking a question.

G= giga for a billion and ya = years ago. Does it make sense that the rocks would be billions and the earth which is partly the rocks be 6000? Sure, it could be anything but I'd prefer to stick to things that make the most sense.

When did I say, "they?" I never said who proved it to me. Not in here, anyway.

so no answer? OK, what proved Genesis to be true. I know you know what I'm saying so instead of avoiding the question just answer it, please.

Where are they? Where are the missing links?

Instead of going through all the examples why don't you pick up an evolution textbook?

 

[Stratnerd]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:cow:


Again, that's what your claims are based upon.

I'd love to respond but you actually don't say anything.

Please make a post with some content.