Talk Origins?

Discussion in 'Christian Forum' started by TPM, Jan 13, 2006.

  1. TPM

    TPM Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,818
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    South Eastern Ontario, Canada
  2. havenhunter

    havenhunter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,471
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Location:
    N.B. Canada
  3. silvermallard

    silvermallard Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,682
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Anytime someone starts a rebuttal by saying, "Let's not discuss the foundational facts or reasoning of the matter. Let's limit our discussion to only the conclusions," you need to get VERY suspicious! Nowhere is this more true than in scientific discourse. But, take for example, would it be allowed in a court of law? "Members of the jury, we're not going to present any evidence that the defendant is guilty. We're only going to focus on whether or not you should declare him guilty." :eek: Huh? Doesn't make much sense, does it? How can you decide whether or not a man is guilty while ignoring the facts and suppositions and probabilities surrounding the claim that he is is/is not guilty? It is a pure exercise in hper-existentialism to treat the conclusions without treating the argument which leads to the conclusion. You have to just say, "I feel in my gut he's guilty," or not guilty, with zero conscious/rational consideration of how you got there.

    This lacks ALL intellectual credibility and this author should have been laughed out of the scientific community for even postulating such a response. What it does is it further demonstrates Mr. Fernandez's contention that this is both a METAPHYSICAL debate and a self-fulfilling tautology. If my advantage on the battlefield is that I have far superior numbers of soldiers, tanks, and artillery; and you propose we fight our battle using the same numbers of each, I am going to laughingly decline your offer. If I possess overwhelming military superiority and we are locked in a heated border dispute, and you suggest we rule out military enforcement of the border, I am...again...going to laugh at you as I decline your offer. This is, in effect, what is going on among naturalist philosophers. They demand that we take all philosophical argumentation out of the discussion of evolution v creation. That's because they:

    1. Know that when philosophy is applied, their rational "scientific" arguments do not withstand scrutiny.
    2. Know that in a battle of competing philosophies, naturalism is a big loser even in today's world of secular humanism. The vast majority of intelligent, thinking people on this planet still believe that there is some reality beyond the reach of observable science.

    It's much like an auto mechanic claiming to be a better psychologist than the psychologist and saying he will prove it by challenging the psychologist to fix a car. The psychologist replies, "Don't you think a better test of psychoanalytical prowess would be to fix a PERSON's MIND?" And the auto mechanic replies, "NO! The field of competition will be strictly limited to fixing cars...no aspect of human thought or emotion is allowed into the contest!" Well, of course, the psychologist foolish enough to enter into such a contest is going to lose and the auto mechanic will declare himself the PROVEN superior psychologist. But we all know it's absolute hogwash! So WHY in heaven's name would we ever agree to go there?
     
  4. TPM

    TPM Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,818
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    South Eastern Ontario, Canada
    Outstanding response SM. Thanks.
     
  5. havenhunter

    havenhunter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,471
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Location:
    N.B. Canada
    What a bunch of nonsense. The reply to fernandez' article was limited because he made the assumtion that TO tries to present a balanced view on the subject of origins. They make no such claim. The rest of the aticle is pointless. He goes on to demonstrate how they commit "deception by ommission but omits the foundational facts they provide in thier links along with thier responses. Who is being intellectually dishonest?

    "this author should have been laughed out of the scientific community for even postulating such a response."

    He makes a scietific Argument? where?

    "1. Know that when philosophy is applied, their rational "scientific" arguments do not withstand scrutiny."

    Yes science does not care if it is philosophicaly delightful or supports someones deeply held beliefs. It is the study of what is, not what should be or what we hope for.

    "2. Know that in a battle of competing philosophies, naturalism is a big loser even in today's world of secular humanism. The vast majority of intelligent, thinking people on this planet still believe that there is some reality beyond the reach of observable science."

    What the majority of people think does not matter one bit. Science doesn't care about that either. What it cares about: Does the experiment agree with the conclusion?

    Evolution as a tautology-

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

    metaphsics-

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/metaphysics.html
     
  6. silvermallard

    silvermallard Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,682
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Location:
    Hawaii
    HH, you need to go evolve from a lab rat to a philosopher, my man. When you learn how to THINK instead of just measuring stuff and regurgitating statistics, then we'll talk. Dude...there is no science without philosophy. ALL of the truly great scientists were also philosophers. Science is the study of observable phenomena. Philosophy is the study of the MEANING of science. And when "scientists" try to explain the meaning of things without philosophy, they really make fools of themselves to everyone but themselves.
     
  7. TPM

    TPM Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,818
    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    South Eastern Ontario, Canada

    :l :l :l

    That's a good one Haven!

    If your "science" does not agree with the rest of the "scientific" community, be prepared to be cast out and treated like trash. The "scientific" community is all about controlling what everyone believes and you better not challenge the status quo!

    If science truly cared about experimentation and conclusion there would be no evolutionists on the planet for there is no experiment that has ever led to the conclusion of evolution.

    Saying that scientists are purely objective is like the journalists over at the CBC who claim they have no bias!
     
  8. BrownDrake

    BrownDrake Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,134
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2002
    Location:
    South Texas

    Man is that ever the truth!!!!:yes
     
  9. havenhunter

    havenhunter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,471
    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Location:
    N.B. Canada
    "If science truly cared about experimentation and conclusion there would be no evolutionists on the planet for there is no experiment that has ever led to the conclusion of evolution."

    That is simply untrue, I have posted links to dozens and dozens of experiments that test evolution. It has passed these tests time and time again. They all hold true to the premise of Decent with modification. There appears to be no testable verifyable alternative to the explanation of our origins. There are other explanations however these explanations are not subject to any kind of critical review.

    "If your "science" does not agree with the rest of the "scientific" community, be prepared to be cast out and treated like trash. The "scientific" community is all about controlling what everyone believes and you better not challenge the status quo!"


    If creation scientists want thier ideas to be accepted they need to open up thier work to the same review and challenges that real scientists do. If that day ever comes I'll be very interested to see what comes out of it.
     
  10. silvermallard

    silvermallard Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    3,682
    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2001
    Location:
    Hawaii
    And THAT is where your critical flaw lies! THAT is what creates the tautology.

    Philosophy IS subject to critical review. It is even sometimes testable by scientific means using scientific allegory, physics, and most mathematical disciplines. Philosophy is a discipline that is heavily ruled by all the rigors of math and science save two: it is not ESSENTIAL that philosophical precepts be observable in nature, and it is not MANDATORY that they be duplicatable in a laboratory. That is because philosophy is a theoretical discipline much like mathematics. It is also because philosophy assumes that there could be things in existence that are not observable. But it is HIGHLY testable.

    And the other point you seen to have repeatedly missed is that when we say "evolution," we are talking about the logical flaw that assigns causation to the obervable truths. There is NOTHING in the scientific evidence for evolution to suggest that:

    1. Divine creation is NOT POSSIBLE.
    2. Evolution is an acceptable explanation for how it all started.

    Yet, evolutionists insist that these two things are true and that they can prove it. But they continuously fail. They continuously fail because these two things are NOT TRUE. Super-natural creation IS possible. And evolution, no matter how hard it has tried for the past century, cannot even begin to answer the question: how did it all begin? Evolution PRESUPPOSES the existence of life and procedes from there. And, in that context, makes a lot of sense and is highly provable. But, in the bigger context, "evolution" includes the cardinal tenets that there is no supernatural causative factor in the origins of the universe and that evolution is the one-word answer for how everything happened. And that is what we object to. These two points are simply wrong. And these two points are the underpinnings of the evolution side of the evolution vs creation debate. The best science (or math) in the world built upon faulty assumptions is still bad science (or math) that leads to faulty conclusions.

    Bottom line...and this is for you personally...so long as you insist upon using only the observable physical universe for evidence, you will NEVER see anything supernatural or unobservable. The truth of that should be self-evident...and is to most folks I might add. If you put a filter on your camera lens that blocks out all blue light rays, nothing in your photograph will seem blue. Capiche? If your eyes were similarly filtered and no one else's were, you would run around your whole life arguing against the existence of blue. But you would still be wrong. There is no way to address the unobservable stricty via examining the observable. And the scientific community itself would be the first to admit that...even with all our modern technology and theoretical advances...we still can only observe a small fraction of what is real in the universe. So, to take the position "if we can't observe it in nature we can assume it does not exist" is really narrow-minded and downright dumb. That is a classic logic flaw. The existence of one thing, does not prove the lack of existence of anything else. It only proves that what is IS. It does not prove than anything else IS NOT. Of course, that's a mathematical (symbolic logic) and philosophical (rationalism) concept. And you've chosen to ignore those.

    You may choose to live with blinders on, but don't expect to go around telling everyone who refuses the blinders that they're stupid or backward thinking and expect us not to make fun of you for it. To us, you just look dumb...or crazy...walking around with your blinders on bumping into stuff all the time.
     

Share This Page