Isn't it reasonable to doubt Young Earth Creationism?

[jsanford108]

Bold numbers next to items I will address below

No I'm not. I'm giving you a list of people who cannot be ignored from before the industrial revolution.(1) I haven't rejected anyone by that list. Would you like a list of people from before the industrial revolution whose ideas I think can be rejected?

In mathematics, and the occasional physics idea like density.(2)

No, they were genuinely ignorant, especially by comparison with other civilisations of the time.(3)

No, that is not the approach I am taking. The list of scientists I gave was not selected on personal bias, but on the repeatability of the experiments they first performed and the logical robustness of the theories that they developed. In other words, they were right about gravitational attraction, and heliocentrism, and so forth, but they were wrong about Intelligent Design, which is not a theory but is a disproved hypothesis.(4)

I don't think you fully appreciate the problem with 'cause'. You can use it in the general case of 'force causes acceleration' say, but if you are going to ask what caused the Big Bang, then you are really asking what happened before the Big Bang that led to the Big Bang. And the problem then is that causal relationships have a time component to them: the cause precedes the effect. But the Big Bang is not preceded by anything(5), so you can't say it has a temporal cause(6). I think it is fair to predict that you will make a theological point by your use of the word 'cause', but by all means show me I am wrong about that.

There is no innate drive for fitness in DNA. It's just a molecule. It is a condition imposed from the outside by natural selection that it will not survive if it is not fit for causing survival and reproduction of its carrier species.

Indeed. Which is why I asserted it. There is no need to provide evidence to deny a positive claim that is made without unambiguous evidence.(7)

It is well known that negatives cannot be proved(8). But there is such a thing as the burden of proof, which falls on those who make claims. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence will need to be for the basic principle of the burden of proof to be fulfilled. This is not a scientific principle, but a principle of integrity.(9)

You make an extrordinary claim. Why have you given no unambiguous evidence for it(10a)? Christians have done nothing to deserve being believed.(10b)

I am happy with any such discussion. But I don't respect your use of the word 'supernatural'. I think you would have to explain how that is not special pleading. Why does there need to be a distinction? Are you claiming that the laws of physics don't apply to some situations? I take it you will be explaining how that works too.(11)

It is a young earth creationist claim that the speed of light is dramatically faster in the direction of starlight travelling to earth. They make this claim because stars are as much as billions of light years away, and they believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and they don't like the idea that their god created the light from the stars in transit, complete with the record of the history of the star that the light contains, a history that never happened. They think their god wouldn't try to deceive them like that. So yes, that has been suggested by creationists. There is no reason to believe it, like most creationism.

I can't remember my crime, but I am most apologetic for whatever it was.

I hope you have followed the discussion on ice cores, and I have linked to some information there.

By all means, give me another example, and I will happily provide you with citations for evidence. One point at a time is probably all I can manage, I'm sure you won't try to Gish Gallop me.(12)

Stuart

Here are the errors you made, fallacies on your part, or a correction/clarification by myself:

1.) Here is my first point of fallacious approach on your part; you have provided a list of people who you claim "cannot be rejected," with no evidence or argument as to why this is the case. Yet, further on in your post, you project a claim lacking evidence onto me, as some sort of fallacy on my part.

I do not disagree with the persons you mentioned being accurate in their claims. I am just pointing out an already bad approach to dialogue, when you hypocritically call for evidence form the opposing side, while never providing any of your own.

2.) More of a clarification point here; surely you accept ideas of philosophy and science, outside of just mathematics and "occasional" physics? My guess here is that you are attempting, as you have demonstrated with prior responses, to distance yourself from any philosophical leanings. Just a guess. I could be wrong, and apologize if I am.

3.) Again, you are making a claim, absent a provision of evidence. The ancient middle eastern people built pyramids, performed successful surgeries, and knew the antibacterial applications of brass. Surely, you do not classify this as ignorant? (Rhetorical question)

4.) ID has not been disproved; rather, simply rejected by atheist and anti-theist scientists and persons. ID actually rests on an absence of evidence, just as the question of the origin of life within various alternate origin theories. So, to claim it has been disproved is false (granted, there are various ID theories which have been disproved, just as various global shape theories were disproved).

5.) Something cannot come from nothing. This is a natural, cosmological law. Also, you have no natural evidence to support "nothing" existing before the Big Bang. Thus, you are making an extraordinary claim, with no unambiguous evidence. (yet, further on, you claim this is the fallacy on a my part; hypocritical, much?)

6.) I never claimed a temporal cause. I know that here you are just clarifying your point, however, it could quickly lead to a straw man argument. While you are not making that fallacy in this instance, it could develop. This point is just more of a word of caution for ensuring progressive discussion.

7.) The issues within your own stance abound with this point. The easiest and lowest hanging fruit to utilize is the immediate hypocrisy on your part. As demonstrated in point 5, you have made such a claim, yet now are criticizing my position (despite my statement regarding the existence of God being philosophical, not scientific).

Also, it shows that you require evidence for opposing positions, while not requiring it for your own. The claim, "there is no god" is extraordinary, yet, there is no evidence for it. Rather than addressing this logical fallacy, you instead project it onto your opposition, while claiming to have a superior ground.

8.) This is false. Negatives can be proved. If I say Stuart is not in my home, I can prove it using natural evidence. You seem to simply be trying to preserve your position by making more claims of absolute, despite them being false.

9.) So, can we both agree to maintain integral arguments? Thus far, you seem to be making absolute claims, using falsehoods as support. I would argue that is a lack of integrity.

Also, burden of proof lies with both parties. To shift the burden of proof is an integrity-lacking move. It demonstrates a lack of confidence in one's abilities to adequately defend one's position. Therefore, shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy. In fact, your very own claim is extraordinary, yet lacking in evidence; yet you claim that the burden lies with your opposition. But, more on that later.

10a.) Again, you have committed the very act that you are inferring is fallacy. This is hypocritical.

10b.) Most early scientists were Christians. So, unless you reject genetics, hydraulics, etc, then you are claiming a falsehood (which, it totally is).

11.) So, you do not respect my correct connotation and definition of "supernatural?" Seems like you are basing your "respect" on which facts align with your own ideas. This is not logical, reasonable, nor bearing integrity.

12.) Oh the gish gallop. Anti-theists love to claim that a gish gallop has been made by theists in their arguments. In my experience in conversations, I have been accused of making a gish gallop, having never done so. Now, granted, my experience is limited to solely myself; other theists may make them all the time. This is a presumptuous approach to discussion. I have not made a gish gallop thus far, so expecting one seems to be arrogant. I am not stating that you claimed I made a gish gallop, for the record. I am just gleefully pointing out that a common anti-theist approach of mislabeling my arguments as a gish gallop is already being set up, whether intentionally or not.

 

[jsanford108]

Allow me to being the response post by saying that I am going to stick to philosophical arguments (as I posited that such discussions regarding God are limited to), while utilizing various natural evidences in support of those arguments. I am not claiming that these natural phenomenon are evident of God, rather, that they support the philosophical claims that I outline.

When I make scientific claims, they will be based solely on natural evidence, while using philosophical principles as the approach to analysis. (this will all make sense when you see my claims)

Let's begin:

I don't think you fully appreciate the problem with 'cause'. You can use it in the general case of 'force causes acceleration' say, but if you are going to ask what caused the Big Bang, then you are really asking what happened before the Big Bang that led to the Big Bang. And the problem then is that causal relationships have a time component to them: the cause precedes the effect. But the Big Bang is not preceded by anything, so you can't say it has a temporal cause. I think it is fair to predict that you will make a theological point by your use of the word 'cause', but by all means show me I am wrong about that.

Cause, while existing naturally, most often occurs within the temporal plane (see, that is philosophy and science both). Examining the Big Bang, the Big Bang requires a cause, as every action requires an equal and opposite reaction. So yes, something must have occurred before the Big Bang, in order to cause the Big Bang.

If the Big Bang, as you seem to suggest, was the inception of time itself, then how was time, a metaphysical property, created? There is always a point of origin. This is evidenced by science. So, if you claim that "nothing" existed before the big bang, then what is your evidence of this? I would be willing to speculate that your theory of pre-big bang lacks science, and relies on personal theology.

There is no innate drive for fitness in DNA. It's just a molecule. It is a condition imposed from the outside by natural selection that it will not survive if it is not fit for causing survival and reproduction of its carrier species.

So, how did this condition come about? Again, you are relying on a "because it did" scenario, absent of evidence.

Biology teaches that fitness is an innate drive of survival. Now, here you are claiming it is not. If any organism lacks the ___insert preferred term___ to survive, then it dies. (The terms, which biology considers synonymous are drive/will/etc.)

Indeed. Which is why I asserted it. There is no need to provide evidence to deny a positive claim that is made without unambiguous evidence.

It is well known that negatives cannot be proved. But there is such a thing as the burden of proof, which falls on those who make claims. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence will need to be for the basic principle of the burden of proof to be fulfilled. This is not a scientific principle, but a principle of integrity.

You make an extrordinary claim. Why have you given no unambiguous evidence for it? Christians have done nothing to deserve being believed.

This was addressed in my errors/fallacies post. It would bear repeating though here.

Burden of proof lies with whoever makes the claim. You asserted that no god exists. You made the first claim. Nowhere did I make the claim that God existed; I merely called you to the same level of criticism as that which you directed onto theists. Now, demonstrate that you are competent to defending your position that no god exists, since it, by your own principles, should be evidenced.

Now, unlike you, I fully expect a philosophical argument, utilizing natural evidence as means of support. In fact, I will posit three things at the end of this post that you surely accept, that are extraordinary claims, yet that you will be unable to demonstrate as existing, outside of philosophical arguments.

I am happy with any such discussion. But I don't respect your use of the word 'supernatural'. I think you would have to explain how that is not special pleading. Why does there need to be a distinction? Are you claiming that the laws of physics don't apply to some situations? I take it you will be explaining how that works too.

There is a clear distinction, existing in reality, between natural and supernatural. The denotations are distinctly different, as are the theories and principles surrounding each.

It is not special pleading, as the clear distinction, which I highlighted, exists. An apple is not an orange. Sure, they are both fruits, but an argument about the two can quickly diverge due to the relative properties possessed by them, individually. I speculate that you are attempting to remove the aspects associated with the distinction, in order to limit the conversation to your own realm of preference and comfort (I could be wrong, but that seems to be a theme throughout your responses). So, I would say that the distinction between supernatural and natural, which exists in reality, does need to be present, in order to have a progressive dialogue on this particular subject.

It is a young earth creationist claim that the speed of light is dramatically faster in the direction of starlight travelling to earth. They make this claim because stars are as much as billions of light years away, and they believe the universe is less than 10,000 years old, and they don't like the idea that their god created the light from the stars in transit, complete with the record of the history of the star that the light contains, a history that never happened. They think their god wouldn't try to deceive them like that. So yes, that has been suggested by creationists.

I did not know that this was a position taken by various creation theories, probably due to the niche followings of such theories. Yet, I did not see any precluding my response regarding speeds of light. If such an example does exist, the fault is my own for not noting it, and I apologize.

By all means, give me another example, and I will happily provide you with citations for evidence. One point at a time is probably all I can manage, I'm sure you won't try to Gish Gallop me.

Now, you claim that no god exists; I would even presume to suggest that you would make the claim that the Christian God does not exist.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion? (simple yes or no will suffice; knowing that if you claim "yes," I will ask for it to be presented)

You arguments thus far have demonstrated a thesis of "any extraordinary claim, made absent of evidence, can be rejected." (quote a summation made by myself) Yet, surely you accept the following three claims, yet are unable to posit evidence of their existence. If you can, then please do so:

Logic exists, numbers exist, thought exists.

Logic, numbers, and thought are not ideas which can be proved. One can claim that numbers represent a quantity, but that just dismisses the question of how numbers are a part of reality. One could argue that through chemical and electrical elements in the brain, we can draw a direct correlation between those occurrences and ideas being projected. Yet, the same correlation can exist between the sale of ice cream and murders occurring. Obviously, I accept the science; but that does not explain what a thought is, nor how it exists.

So, do you accept that logic exists? Numbers exist? Thought exists? If so, what is your argument and evidence for such existence? (If we agree that these exist, absent of evidence, then we can progress onto our discussion of divine deity)

 

[Vulcan Logician]

It is quite reasonable for an atheist/agnostic to doubt YEC. In fact, it is a requirement. If there is no God, naturalism is all that is left. The TOE is a systematically logical approach to the question; "How did we get here naturally?". It is just as reasonable for those who do not limit themselves to natural answers only, to embrace YEC.

This is just another way of saying that, the worldview that one accepts as plausible is dependent on pre-conceptions. We have been saying this for a long time now. Evolutionists embrace atheism long before they do evolution. And Creationists embrace God long before they see the merits of YEC.

I don't presuppose naturalism in the OP. I presuppose empiricism. No one has to assume anything about God's existence in order to study the natural universe and come to conclusions about its age. No one has to assume anything about God's existence to study the fossil records and come to conclusions about the origin of species.

Empiricism leads to naturalism. Naturalism suggests the implausibility of YEC. You're going to have to refute John Locke in order to refute my position in the OP. Good luck with that.

 

[Derf]

I don't presuppose naturalism in the OP. I presuppose empiricism. No one has to assume anything about God's existence in order to study the natural universe and come to conclusions about its age. No one has to assume anything about God's existence to study the fossil records and come to conclusions about the origin of species.

Empiricism leads to naturalism. Naturalism suggests the implausibility of YEC. You're going to have to refute John Locke in order to refute my position in the OP. Good luck with that.

But what leads to empiricism? Isn't it a trust in our senses? A trust that can't be verified by empiricism, since empiricism is not observable?

 

[Stripe]

Well, let me give you a gift then, with this complete reword:

Demonstrate one piece of unambiguous evidence in support of anything you believe to be true.

Stuart

Already done.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

t....the fact that in all the centuries we've been studying living organisms, the only way we've ever seen new species arise has been via evolutionary mechanisms.

Yes... natural selection causes loss of genetic variation in a population. Often, this loss of variation results in endangered species And extinctions. The fact that in all the centuries we been studying living organisms, the evidence shows us it is a downhill process. Science shows us the uphill evolution the common ancestry belief system wants is psuedo-science.

 

[Jose Fly]

No, not by itself. But it was one of the premises Darwin used for his conclusion of UCA.

Where? Show where Darwin said "populations evolve, therefore universal common ancestry is true".

I didn't pick the article title! What is "Tree of Life" if not a summary of UCA? Can you really say with a straight face that an article with "Tree of Life" in the title is not at least somewhat about UCA?

First, I would strongly suggest you rely on the actual original paper rather than the Science Daily article. At best, sites like SD provide general overviews of the material, and at worst sometimes focus on getting clicks and views.

And if you look at the original paper, the only reference to the "Tree of Life" is...

Our genome-scale results provide a population genomic explanation as to why some species radiations may be more complex than a fully bifurcating tree of life.​

And that's exactly as I described...their work applies to specific circumstances, mainly adaptive radiations. And as you can see, they were even guarded in that statement (note the qualifier "some species radiations").

Well, forget the title of the article. Here's the summary:

New species evolve whenever a lineage splits off into several. Because of this, the kinship between species is often described in terms of a 'tree of life,' where every branch constitutes a species. Now, researchers have found that evolution is more complex than this model would have it, and that the tree is actually more akin to a bush.

The summary seems to think the article is about
1. kinship between species
2. how species branching off is described by "tree of life"
3. how "evolution" is described by that "tree of life" model
4. how the "tree" (one of two concepts mentioned in the model, the other being "life") is really not a tree.

And that's all fine. As the work shows, in some specific cases the patterns of speciation seem to be different and more complex than previously thought, i.e., more bush-like than tree-like.

But you still seem to be thinking along the lines of "these scientists say in some lineages the relationship between species is is more bush-like than tree-like, therefore those species are not related at all and universal common ancestry is false".

Do I have that right?

What do the scientists actually say?

'We can see that the very rapid rate at which various bird species started evolving once the dinosaurs went extinct, i.e. around 65 million years ago, meant that the genome failed to split into separate lineages during the process of speciation', Hans Ellegren says. 'The more complex kinship patterns that result from this phenomenon mean that the Tree of Life should often be understood as a Bush of Life', Alexander Suh and Hans Ellegren say.

Funny. The authors start talking about evolution of various bird species, and end up talking about, "the Tree of Life".

And as the quote from the actual paper I posted above shows, they are referring to specific relationships within specific circumstances.

So, despite all your herculean efforts to distance the evolution of birds from universal common ancestry, the article quotes the scientists as joining the two concepts. You can't get around the fact that the article, and the scientists the article is about, are in complete disagreement with you about the point of the article and the science!

So let's assume for a second that the authors really did intend to extrapolate their findings about the early evolutionary history of birds to the entire evolutionary history of all life on earth, and therefore they are saying that the universal tree of life is more bush-like.

Therefore........?

Like this?

No, not at all. You're operating under the misconception that evoultion proceeds by enormous rapid taxonomic leaps, as we'll see in a bit.

The whole point they were making is that they can't find the simplistic view of evolution you describe in the bird species they investigated. They CAN'T FIND IT.

Again, you need to read the original paper. I especially urge you to take a close look at Figure 4. There you'll see that their work is about the complexity of the early diversification of birds, but the overall evolutionary relationships remain.

That's what I think you're missing....this paper merely describes a different pattern of early bird evolution, but does not in any way present any data that calls into question that notion that they evolved from a common ancestor. Do you understand that?

You basically seem to be arguing "They found that bird species evolved differently than previously thought, therefore they didn't evolve at all!"

So they say the fundamental concept of species A evolving into species B and species B giving rise to species C, which matches the simplistic description of Darwin's tree of life cartoon, as well as YOUR description, is not that simple. Darwin was wrong in that aspect of his theory.

No, not at all. Their findings show that these species are all related and share a common ancestry (due to the nature of the shared retrotransposons) and that new species evolved from older ones, but it all happened so quickly (in geological terms) their respective genomes didn't always have time to completely diverge.

I mean....do you get that? Re-drawing the shape of evolutionary relationships does not mean there are no relationships in the first place. This would be like if I found out that my ancestors went back and forth between the US and Germany instead of just coming here once, and you saying "therefore you are not descended from Germans".

Which brings us back to the point I raised earlier--that "evolutionary mechanism" encapsulates ANY kind of change, thus your statement is a tautology.

No it doesn't. If I cut off my arm, I've changed. But that change isn't passed down to my descendants, so it's not evolution.

I'll rephrase it for you: "in all the centuries we've been studying living organisms, the only way we've ever seen one species change into another has been via change." Can you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Of course, if you deliberately phrase anything in a ridiculous way it tends to sound ridiculous.

In this I agree with you--we do not see God making brand new creatures out of dirt and water today.

Instead we always see them evolve from existing species.

But in this I think you have to agree with me--that "in all the centuries we've been studying living organisms, we've never seen a new species arise that was also a new family". Does that bother you? That somehow evolution has lost its creative power?

Again you present a silly straw man, where a dog gives birth to a cat or something. As I tried to convey earlier, the evolutionary history of life on earth is a series of speciation events, not a member of one family giving birth to a member of an entirely new family. Do you understand that?

Speaking of straw men....
Only if there are no other options available, especially if the fossil record shows upward progression.

You'll have to be more specific. What straw man, and what other options?

Funny, indeed! Shall we go back to the article?

Less than a year ago, a consortium of some hundred researchers reported that the relationship between all major bird clades had been mapped out by analysing the complete genome of around 50 bird species. This included the exact order in which the various lineages had diverged.

Hahahahahahahaha! That is a funny story! (soon to be rejected by members of the group that made it up.)

So you truly and honestly think that those researchers merely "made up" their results? No data collection, no analyses, no peer review....just "hey, I got an idea"?

And Christians wonder why their faith is increasingly seen as anti-science.

I appreciate that what you said is ONE possibility for design. But another is that the ability to change within limits was designed into some original creatures, and that is what we see today.

By what mechanism did this ability come to exist in all organisms on earth?

We see dogs and corn and pigeons, etc., that can become different looking dogs and corn and pigeons. But no dogs that become pigeons.

And there's your ignorance of this subject rearing its head again. Has it ever occurred to you that the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it?

Creationists can be wrong, too. Are you sure you want to look at everything every evolutionist has ever said and use it to make a judgment on evolutionary biology? I have a feeling you wouldn't let me get away with that, so why would you want to use it on me?

You missed the point. Simply asserting after-the-fact that "God made it that way" is from a scientific standpoint, meaningless. It's no different than asserting "it was magic".

Isn't it just as meaningless to ascribe "change" to "evolutionary mechanisms"? From a scientific standpoint, it's meaningless.

No. Our understanding of the fact that populations evolve over time and they ways in which they do so is the foundation of all the life sciences. It explains why we need new vaccines and antibiotics all the time; it explains what we see in the fossil record; it helps us figure out functions of genetic sequences.

OTOH, creationism has contributed absolutely nothing to our scientific understanding of the world.

Because the authors INTERPRETED their study results to apply it to evolution, and not just to a side branch of evolution, but to the fundamental concept of the "Tree of Life". But I guess they are just sitting around making up stories.

Again, you missed the point. This research provides additional evidence of the common ancestry of these bird species (due to the nature of retrotrasposons) and further clarifies the specific patterns of early bird evolution.

Yet somehow, you're trying to use the work to declare "therefore we should all reject evolution!"

It's just bizarre.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yes... natural selection causes loss of genetic variation in a population. Often, this loss of variation results in endangered species And extinctions.

And other times it results in increased fitness, e.g., antibiotic resistance.

The fact that in all the centuries we been studying living organisms, the evidence shows us it is a downhill process.

What do you mean by "downhill process"?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I don't presuppose naturalism in the OP. I presuppose empiricism. No one has to assume anything about God's existence in order to study the natural universe and come to conclusions about its age. No one has to assume anything about God's existence to study the fossil records and come to conclusions about the origin of species.

Empiricism leads to naturalism. Naturalism suggests the implausibility of YEC. You're going to have to refute John Locke in order to refute my position in the OP. Good luck with that.

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the idea of innate ideas or traditions;​

Most Christians have had sensory experiences that have proven to them that God exists.
Those sensory experiences typically come after the Christian has faith in a cause->effect relationship.
Skeptics demand that the cause->effect relationship be reversed so the sensory experiences would come before the faith.

 

[Vulcan Logician]

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasizes the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the idea of innate ideas or traditions;​

Take note of what I bolded. Sensory information (aka empirical evidence) is important to forming correct ideas. This does not mean that any idea formed from sensory information is correct. After all, sensory information leads to the conclusion that the sun revolves around the earth. It does not, but how do we know this? Because Galileo made some more precise sensory observations which suggested otherwise.

Most Christians have had sensory experiences that have proven to them that God exists.
Those sensory experiences typically come after the Christian has faith in a cause->effect relationship.
Skeptics demand that the cause->effect relationship be reversed so the sensory experiences would come before the faith.

Keeping in mind what I said above about imprecise conclusions derived from sensory experience, how do you know that a person's mystical experience "proves" the existence of Yahweh? I have read about many having the experience of a "divine and holy" presence that cleansed them or comforted them. And these are taken to be evidence of Yahweh, but only perhaps because the individuals that have these experiences were raised in a Christian culture. Allow me to play devil's advocate here: how do you know those were not experiences of Lord Vishnu, a deity in the Hindu pantheon who, according to Hindu scriptures, lends comfort to the righteous in their times of despair? How do you know that when a Christian says that he communed with Yahweh, that he did not actually commune with Vishnu?

Feeling a divine presence hardly proves the existence of the Christian god. Just like the sun revolving around the earth, one might examine these mystical perceptions more closely and find the opposite of the immediate inference is true.

Let me clarify that I think that Vishnu is just as imaginary as Yahweh. Your argument suggests that Yahweh and Vishnu are equally real. After all, if mystical perceptions of the presence of Yahweh (which are on record) prove the existence of Yahweh, then mystical perceptions of Vishnu (which are on record) would, by your logic, prove the existence of Vishnu.

 

[Vulcan Logician]

But what leads to empiricism? Isn't it a trust in our senses? A trust that can't be verified by empiricism, since empiricism is not observable?

If you read John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding he lays out why empirical observations are trustworthy. The nutshell is: they are consistent. It is reliable to depend on knowledge that has been proven by empirical observation. It's not to be taken on faith that empiricism gives reliable information... that's why Locke spends a whole book ARGUING IT. He makes the case that it is rational and reasonable to rely on that which has been empirically proven. At no time does he say: "Trust me, I'm right about this."

 

[6days]

And other times it results in increased fitness, e.g., antibiotic resistance.

Nope..... they have usually lost fitness. When the resistant bacteria are removed from the antibiotics, they have less fitness than than the parent population. (Similar to how highly adapted island and coral populations are highly adapted and unable to survive environmental change.


In any case, bacteria often seem to have designed mechanisms helping them to adapt. Our world needs bacteria for other life to exist.

What do you mean by "downhill process"?

It is the opposite of the "uphill process" you believe in.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope..... they have usually lost fitness. When the resistant bacteria are removed from the antibiotics, they have less fitness than than the parent population.

Lol...way to demonstrate your ignorance. A population's fitness is relative to the environment in which it exists. That's biology 101.

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_27

It is the opposite of the "uphill process" you believe in.

Gee...6days dodges. What a shock.

 

[6days]

Lol...way to demonstrate your ignorance. A population's fitness is relative to the environment in which it exists. That's biology 101..

Only am evolutionist can believe a loss is a gain. Endangered populations have LOST variation... lost fitness.

The adapted populations have LOST genetic variation. That is what selection does... it eliminates.
Example: "It is well established that a decrease in genetic variation can lead to reduced fitness and lack of adaptability to a changing environment." http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/2/1/47

 

[Jose Fly]

Only am evolutionist can believe a loss is a gain. Endangered populations have LOST variation... lost fitness.

The adapted populations have LOST genetic variation. That is what selection does... it eliminates.
Example: "It is well established that a decrease in genetic variation can lead to reduced fitness and lack of adaptability to a changing environment." http://www.mdpi.com/1424-2818/2/1/47

6days, would you at least pretend to pay attention?

I mean....are you seriously arguing that no population has ever increased in fitness, ever? Are you arguing that in an environment with antibiotics, a population of bacteria that's resistant is less fit than one that's susceptible?

If so, just say so and I'll have a good laugh. If not....what in the world is your point?

 

[Lon]

What specifically did I say about AWANA that caused you to think I don't know much about Christianity?

Because a lot of your comments are ignorant. I'm fairly convinced you know little and what little you know is slanted off.

Just as I thought....a baseless accusation.

No, on neither point. You are going to have to look in the mirror one day. There aren't many pages in this thread and you are a lazy man.

More accurately, when I said it's a good rule of thumb to understand an idea before trying to debate it, you said that was absurd. Then you accused me of misrepresenting what you said.

If you want to be inept, be inept, Joe. You are often a child in a man's body and it shows. (no, leave the question with 'be specific behind.' It is substantial merely for the fact that "I" said it. You act like a little tiny man.

Would you say you spend more of your time here interacting with folks like me, or chastising your fellow Christians for bringing things like flat earthism and young earthism to your door?

Neither. I'd rather discuss things than chastise. My initial was a correction in here with you. The chastisement is when you get petty with dumb debate tactics.

Again Lon, I fully expect to be seen "in that light". That's why it's there. What strikes me as humorous is how you can't seem to focus on much else.

The rest IS a caricature of it. Always has been. You are that 2 dimensional.

And I'll think for you.

...sorry to burst your bubble. On this point, I know my own mental prowess and have a pretty good handle on yours. You PREFER the childish persona. Sorry about that. I'll, in fact, be doing the thinking for both of us. :e4e:

 

[Jose Fly]

Because a lot of your comments are ignorant. I'm fairly convinced you know little and what little you know is slanted off.

Another baseless accusation.

No, on neither point. You are going to have to look in the mirror one day. There aren't many pages in this thread and you are a lazy man.

Another baseless accusation followed by a personal attack.

I sense a pattern. You seem to be quite comfortable throwing around accusations and personal attacks, while feeling no moral obligation to back them up.

I'll let that speak for itself.

If you want to be inept, be inept, Joe. You are often a child in a man's body and it shows. (no, leave the question with 'be specific behind.' It is substantial merely for the fact that "I" said it. You act like a little tiny man.

More of the same.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

If you read John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding he lays out why empirical observations are trustworthy. The nutshell is: they are consistent. It is reliable to depend on knowledge that has been proven by empirical observation. It's not to be taken on faith that empiricism gives reliable information... that's why Locke spends a whole book ARGUING IT. He makes the case that it is rational and reasonable to rely on that which has been empirically proven. At no time does he say: "Trust me, I'm right about this."

John Locke's tabula rasa view of reason is a denial of reason as a gift of God. The basic problem with Locke's theory is that it makes the "occasion" of human ideas to be the "cause" of human ideas.

Reason is the ability God has given man to function as His representative in creation and to compare things in order to determine their proper relations. It is purely "receptive" of the facts as God has made and revealed them, and therefore finitely bound by the Creator-creature distinction and relationship.

Propositional statements are merely one kind of relationship, namely, the relation of subject to predicate; there is also the relationship of cause to effect, of good to evil, of work to reward, to name but a few. One should beware of any definition of reason which limits it to propositional statements and the laws of logic. Man thinks morally and eschatologically as well as propositionally. The Scriptures maintain clearly defined moral and escatological limits in the use of reason.

AMR

 

[Lon]

Surely this is yes or no. If you want a clearer question, have you ever knowingly met a scientist?

Yes. I'd expect most to say 'yes.'

The oldest bristlecone pine found is over 5,000 years old, and by overlapping the patterns in one tree with older remains, dendrochronology allows you to count back 9,000 years. So much for the 'flood'.

Really? You think some simple answer leaves 'so much for the flood? In what sense? In the sense of YEC? "So much for the flood" is, in my estimation, a poor closer. It just opens another can. Back to the trees. The link said you cannot simply count rings and be accurate.

Why not pre-atheist?

You would need the word anti, so you mean antitheist. I would identify myself more as being antitheism, because I am not against humans, I am against the crazy beliefs that hijack some of their vulnerable brains.

More anti-religious at that point, unless you are talking about the Bible et al.

And there isn't much future in the term, either, if christianity carries on dying at the rate it is. There is rabidly mad islam to carry on the use of the term, I suppose.

Christianity isn't going to die. There is a God. This is a projection that just isn't going to come true. You are overtly hopeful about what is just not going to happen.

No, this is very specifically about the impossibility of the historical alignment of Herod with the Census of Quirinius. The different dating systems is another example of exegetical acrobatics.

Disagree. I've seen the theory. Often, it is an uncommitted 'scholar' that starts these bad rumors and poor theories in the first place, NOT exegetical acrobatics. Higher Criticism is exegetical acrobatics and incredulous theorizing because they cannot believe it. Not my problem. Theirs, and yours for being the dupe.

I think good science starts with observation more often.

Starts, is fine, but creative thinking outside the box needs to be in there in one of the next couple of steps when problem solving. Flat earth was based off of observations long ago.

I wonder if the rage at the irrational arrogance of a government to behave so against the best interests of the people gets in the way of any kind of clear thinking about the consequences of the conspiracy. Do Americans believe they live in a democracy or not?

Oh yes. Only a few are conspiracy theorists. I haven't looked, but I'd imagine the number of flat-earthers are less than a percent of one percent of the population.

Does that mean you have established with a group of students that evolution by natural selection is the best explanation we have for the diversity of biology on the planet?

Nope, that'd be indoctrination. I realize you don't believe so, but I rather give them "this is natural selection." It is up to a student to decide if it is the 'best.' You and I aren't (imho) doing students a favor when we tell them how to think past understanding. They have to categorize in their own minds.

Well, surely there must be dangers. For example, a teacher cannot invite a Gish Gallop, because there is no way a curriculum is going to provide for inquiry learning when a whole list of creationist-provided claims are made with the intention of overwhelming students, as was Duane Gish's intention. That's dishonest, but I bet that gets brought to class by those deluded by their churches. One creationist claim, treated as a comparison to the corresponding scientific theory in the context of a science class? How much time should teachers be spending time on alchemy or horoscopes? Are those profitable for the purpose of inquiry learning?

I disagree. It doesn't even happen here on TOL without the converse being placed beside it in every discussion. It just doesn't happen, imho, that people don't have information available to them that they want to know. I'm by no means into indoctrination when there is a debate about the content.

This statement, when you repeat it, always sounds desperate, as if you are trying to convince yourself more than convince anyone else. And I think that is exactly how a believer's psychology has to run. I imagine for some, life is a constant search for self-affirmation that the beliefs to which they have committed are not as barking mad as they should appear. What a dilemma, and means of self-punishment.

OR you could ask me how I know. Funny THAT question never comes up. Sorry, you can speculate all you like and postulate all you like. It isn't science until it gets done and so we both walk away knowing what we know and not knowing what we don't. I'm not self-deluded. Either God exists or I'm magic. I'm not magic. There really is no other alternative but such won't be reasonable to you. You cannot, however, convince a guy/gal who is convince they saw a pink elephant, that they didn't. There is no convincing any of us with sight, that red doesn't exist by a blind man. It just isn't even remotely, a possible conversation.

It seems that all humans find self-affirmation for beliefs, but what must an atheist do when confronted with unambiguous evidence for a god? The only honest response would be to become a theist.

It really depends how committed or not one is to finding out. You are responsible as I am. We can't believe or change one another. Barring God intervening, you have no place to think He exists. If that is true, what must happen for you to believe He exists? That really is the only thing on the table because the rift between you and I is too far. I'm not able to bridge it. Only God could.

No, I think the logic has to go that if there is a god of the kind you believe in, then you are magical because you can detect it while others can't.

:nono: Other's were present. I'm not magic.

We are all impressionable to some extent.

True. I'm overtly analytical by nature, however and have a lot of skepticism. I don't with God simply because I can't do this stuff. I can only ask.

Scriptures would be that arrogant and dismissive, wouldn't they. You have to be made to believe that, or else it's obvious you are being duped. Can't allow you to think it's obvious, so the meme gives you the delusion of special metaphorical powers of vision.
The evolution of a meme, an inherited piece of culture, is adapted as effectively as any biological system is adapted by natural selection. There is supreme irony in people who are affected by this evolved memetic way of thinking also denying that natural selection could produce immense complexity and diversity. I guess that is a kind of blindness that is not perceivable by a religious believer who is an evolution denier.

All complexities are elusive. What is practical is what we often deem important and true, like love.

But they aren't acting rationally, except to the extent that if you make the absurd assumption that there really is a pink eagle, then it would be well worth your while to duck when it lands. Which is as fitting a metaphor for the 'rationality' of christianity as any.

I'd duck no matter the color of the eagle. Anybody can dye one, especially if they train them. I've actually seen a pink elephant and a green glowing bunny. An exception to the rule, but not at all in the realm of deniability.

That's like claiming that something is 'fairly unique'. Atheist is an absolute, there are not shades of atheism.

Some atheists would argue with you. Those have been harder to nail down. One is not 'against' Christianity, another is against the notion of His existence, another is self-described rather as 'without' the need (agnostic).

Good to know there is hope in the world then.

Stuart

 

[Lon]

Another baseless accusation.


Another baseless accusation followed by a personal attack.

I sense a pattern. You seem to be quite comfortable throwing around accusations and personal attacks, while feeling no moral obligation to back them up.

No, this is just you being lazy again. You tromp around and cry foul when someone calls you on it. I've seen it with others. You can't escape it. THEN you try and take the high road but much too late. It is part of this childish persona thing. You tried to do it just now. No, sorry, you are just this petty.

I'll let that speak for itself.

Me too. You are often a petty little man for it. I'll definitely let that stand and say it again. It isn't baseless. It is you:

If some Christians want to run around telling everyone that to be a Christian you have to believe the earth is flat and only 6,000 years old, I say let 'em.

Do you know of any Christian who says that? :nono:

6days said an ancient earth "destroys the purpose of Calvery". Is he wrong?

"Calvary." How long were you in church?

...Christianity's anti-scientific stance is driving people away from the faith, especially young people.

Nope. It is roughly unchanged. Still 70% don't buy science prognosticating.

So when they want to argue a flat and young earth, let them take the stage and give 'em a microphone.

Ah, so misrepresentation, it is like saying let's let Westbro represent all of us, when you know they aren't even large enough to be a fraction of a percentage. lain:
You ARE just this kind of guy. Either not to bright or unscrupulous.
Even with this and worse for comment from you, I came in correcting without any vitriol. You were and are yet vitriolic as well as show a dismal understanding of Christian theology. The ONLY thing that concerns you is where it ties in with your views on science for your platforming. Again, either not that bright or unscrupulous. Good on you embracing your moniker all the way.
There, I've substantiated everything and you yet look like a petty child.

More of the same.

Thanks for your time.

Agreed.
You are welcome. -Lon