I've been enjoying myself again over at ERV, maybe more than I should. Boy, do they hate me!
ERV's commenter-minions' inability to grasp most points is rivaled only by their familiarity with vulgar obscenities, but the gap is closing.
#69, ph42 -
But "I don't like it" is YOUR entire reason for rejecting every other religion besides your own.
How would you know that? You've never asked me.
Just FYI, I reject other religions for the same reason I reject naturalism - they're internally inconsistent, so I never even have to ask the question whether they correctly represent reality.
#70, Tyler DiPietro -
If you read them with a little care, you'll see that they're the same. My paraphrase is meant to summarise.
you still haven't explained how the inductive conclusion of common descent based on the evidence is dependent upon such a notion.
I don't see what's so hard about this. Let me repeat myself from above.
Thing is, we've got two competing explanations - common descent vs God did it. I'm looking for an argument why the former is better than the latter. What I see here, though, is some pretty serious violations of the normal and oft-proclaimed Darwinian scientist principles - we accept what we observe. You haven't observed common descent. You didn't observe these ERVs come to be. You don't have a time machine. What you do have is some pretty big assumptions, and assumptions that are tied to naturalism. On the other hand, the alternative - God created them that way - is obviously a non-naturalistic answer. It's a theistic, supernaturalistic answer. So I look at your answer and say that you've arrived at your conclusion through inconsistent means - you say usually that you accept what you observe, but in fact a great deal of this you haven't observed.
#71, ph42 -
Nature exists. This is obvious from any observations of the real world, and your determination to deny it makes no difference.
1) I don't deny nature exists. Your foaming hatred of anything Christian is getting in the way of your reason. Seriously, take a deep breath, go for a jog, have a glass of wine or sthg, then come back and let's talk.
2) How do you know your cognitive faculties are reliably aimed at producing true thoughts, if nature is all there is? If you're a bunch of chemical reactions, much like a shaken-up can of Coke? An animal evolved from a lower primate? A bag of molecules in motion? What's special about the human brain?
Nothing beyond nature has ever been conclusively demonstrated to exist.
Demonstrated by what means? What means do you accept to demonstrate things exist?
Many people claim to have seen supernatural things, but their claims are mutually exclusive
You do realise that mutually exclusive claims do not necessarily mean that both are wrong, but simply that both can't be right?
#72, Optimus -
love that Rhology says, "Just b/c you refuse to accept it b/c you have an a priori commitment to naturalism isn't my problem," and then defines naturalism as "an approach to philosophical problems that interprets them as tractable through the methods of the empirical sciences or at least, without a distinctively a priori project of theorizing." (Whatever that last bit of mangled English means.)
1) The "mangled English" is from a philosophy encyclo, in case you can't see hyperlinks.
2) And I'd fully expect an entry like that to be EXPRESSING a view, not pointing out its obvious weaknesses. This is in fact a problem for YOU and also illustrative of the kind of reductionistic thinking in which you engage. Naturalists, who say that only the natural exists, make a big deal out of demanding evidence for all questions. And yet what they never stop to think about (and which I'm trying to help you see) is that there's no way to get evidence that evidence is a good way to discover truth, beyond circular inductive "well, it's always worked for us!"-es.
#73, Reed -
By acknowledging that your god can do whatever the fuck he wants, you've admitted there is no evidence which we could perceive that your god couldn't create.
Correct. It is in fact my position that the God of the Bible created everything. It is perfectly distinguishable from last Tuesdayism b/c lT-ism is absurd; if God is lying to us, then we have no way to discover truth. About anything.
It's very helpful in understanding our world. Even if I granted that it doesn't say anythg about science (which I don't grant), there's far more to real life than science, and the Bible has tons to say about the human condition, society, morality, love and hate, good and bad, etc.
I do invite you to explain why your revelation is more believable than the revelation of hank.
How does the philosophy of hank account for the existence of the universe and of the laws of logic?
You say "naturalism is bunk", but it is objectively a better way to make predictions about the universe than appeals to ancient superstition.
Not if it's false.
Naturalism gives us vaccines and cars and airplanes and space ships. "god did it" doesn't give us shit.
No, scientific endeavor and study gave you those good things, and while naturalism cannot solve the problem of induction or justify the operation of physical laws into the future, Christianity does both. God holds the world and physical laws in the state they're in now, reliably and consistently so that things like airplane flight, ships' buoyancy, and vaccines work. How does naturalism ensure that those will be reliable one second from now? (Hint - it doesn't.)
#74, DJD -
If facts have to be interpereted through a worldview, they can't be used as evidence for that worldview.
Good question, but hopefully you've been paying attention when I've more than once referred to seeking internal consistency in worldviews.
even if you say "everything is evidence for God", then all that means is "evolution is evidence for God"
You have no evidence that evolution occurred in the way you say it did. You can't observe it. Your own ppl say the fossil record is useless in determining that question (and Gee's argument is sound). Further, God has told us how it went down; I see no reason to trust your pitiful "evidence" that begs the question for naturalism.
#75, Tyler DiPietro,
yeah it is, the fact that something "works" is predicated on it having some correspondence to reality.
I call assumption.
1) Science has gotten many things wrong when it thought to have nailed the cause for some event. Only to discover later it had it wrong.
2) If Joe Caveman runs away from a tiger, it could be from any number of reasons. Sure, it serves to keep him alive, but maybe he thought he was playing hide-and-seek with it. Or he wanted it to give him money, and he believes that the tiger will give it to him if he runs away from it at full speed and climbs a tree. The list could go on and on for these conceivable defeaters for this idea.
#77, Stephen Wells -
You read the whole Bible, that's nice. I told you exactly where to read; if you miss it AGAIN, that's no one's fault but yours.
but nowhere does it actually specify what a "god" is, what the origins of a "god" are, or how a "god" does what it supposedly does.
1) John 4:24, and all those other psgs.
2) God has no origin. He has always been. Isaiah 40-44.
3) He does it supernaturally. That's all throughout the Bible. Colossians 1.
Seriously, if you're gonna argue, don't use this willful ignorance. Who are you trying to impress?
10 comments:
Interesting comments. I went to ERV and read some as well. The problem most of the posters on ERV have, ERV herself included, is that they do not understand the difference between science and logic any better than they understand the difference between fact and opinion.
When I met ERV she made the statement "I'm carrying AIDS and cancer," speaking about the research responsibility she was shouldering (not meaning she had those diseases, though that is what I initially thought she meant). I then had to ask her 5 times if she had cured cancer before she admitted she had not. Prior to her admission she said "[i]f I say no, you'll use that as an excuse to ignore everything I have to say."
News flash, everyone on the planet knows that Abby Smith has not cured cancer. The thing that might make me "not believe anything she has to say" is the fact that I have to ask her 5 times to get a small piece of obvious truth: truth she should know I already know. Can a person like that be trusted to know the difference between fact and opinion or to tell the truth about it if they do? What I find ironic is that someone supposedly in the persuasion business does not understand a logical/philosophical concept at simple as that. An opinion, even one held by every scientist in the world is only an opinion, and in the world of ideas, it helps to know the difference.
People like Abby and her ERV followers are looking to use science as a foundation for their political activism. (I do not get the impression that most of them have general interest in the sciences and useful arts) This makes them think that they have to declare themselves the winner of every intellectual battle, even if they have no factual footing. Rational broad-minded people see through this tactic. Even a 6 year old will not believe a Math PHD from MIT if he tells the child 2 quarters is more money than 4. ERV thinks that it can tell people the viruses had to join the DNA chains and be passed down through darwinian evolution, but when they assert it as impossible that the viruses could have simultaneously joined multiple varying species in the same way, it becomes apparent that they are just fitting an obscure point of science into a origins of life belief scheme they already had, and are trying to use that origins of life scheme to validate a political agenda. With this foundation their only tools for convincing anyone are ridicule and intimidation, which is why you see so much of it from them and their ilk.
- BlackBlogger
Thing is, we've got two competing explanations - common descent vs God did it.
they're not really competing given that the evolutionary version of events can be supported with real world examples in the here and now (eg of chromosomal fusions, of speciation, of ERV insertions etc etc), in addition to the fact that that no reliable means of determining what a 'kind' is exists which is essentially the central point of creationism.
This is in addition to admissions by creationists such as Kurt Wise where they say (when discussing the fossil record):
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/01/honest-creation.html#more
"Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds."
Second, the only way of supporting or disproving a 'God did it' hypothesis is to actually make some predictions that can be tested ie decide what it was God did or was likely to have done and see if it fits with what evidence we have.
Creationism does actually make some claims that can be tested against the real world (eg that the entire human population was regenerated from 8 people about 4500 years ago up to its current total of 6.5 billion or so, that humans can be shown to be distinct from other animals, that animals can be divided into archetypes called kinds, etc etc)
If they fail to support any of these ideas (and many more) or there is data that is not consistent with them, it's surely a good idea that the hypothesis is rejected and a different one favoured that does explain the observations better.
As for vague supernatural claims - these would be as applicable to other events creationists think are naturally caused, yet I've never seen them explain how they distinguish the cases where they allow for unverifiable/untestable supernatural causation and the ones they don't.
I'm looking for an argument why the former is better than the latter.
because of the inability of creationists to support their hypothesis - if animals do genuinely divide into archetypes, with humans distinct from all other animals, then instead of whining about evolution, lets see the data that supports this!
What I see here, though, is some pretty serious violations of the normal and oft-proclaimed Darwinian scientist principles - we accept what we observe.
No you don't, the only place you see this is your own imagination. This is basically just a straw man fallacy.
I've never seen you object to any scientific theory but the ToE on the basis it can't be directly observed, despite the fact there are a phenomenal number of scientific inquiries that do not directly observe the phenomenon they are investigating (eg do you know anyone that has ever travelled to distant stars to verify exactly how far they are from Earth, or anyone who has ever directly weighed Jupiter to see if its mass is what we think it is?). If this is a genuine complaint, at least be consistent and apply it across the board and not just to specific theories you dislike.
You haven't observed common descent.
Seriously man, how many times does this have to be explained to you? The observation is the facts you observe in the field study or the lab experiment or whatever - noone sane claims they sat and watched every single organism or event over 4 billion years of common descent any more than geologists claim they've seen the centre of the earth or the forensics guys in the PD claim they observed the crimes they investigate taking place.
The fact you repeat this same ridiculous claim on every one of these threads (despite the fact that you're mistaken has been pointed out too many times to mention) really makes it hard to take your arguments on this topic seriously.
Dr Funk,
We've already gone over why I think Gee's argument is strong. I read your post on and found it weak; I don't particularly care what Wise says. In fact, I know virtually nothing about him.
the only way of supporting or disproving a 'God did it' hypothesis is to actually make some predictions that can be tested ie decide what it was God did or was likely to have done and see if it fits with what evidence we have.
Why is that the only way? Why not find out which worldview is true?
Consider: The only way of supporting or disproving a 'a is not non-a' hypothesis is to actually make some predictions that can be tested ie decide whether a is likely to have been non-a and see if it fits with what evidence we have.
It's a wholly different category.
If they fail to support any of these ideas (and many more) or there is data that is not consistent with them, it's surely a good idea that the hypothesis is rejected
I DO value evidence, don't make the same mistake the ERV commenters have made. It's just that word of a truthful omniscient being is far stronger evidence than your sorry, assumption-laden diggings in dirt.
despite the fact there are a phenomenal number of scientific inquiries that do not directly observe the phenomenon they are investigating (eg do you know anyone that has ever travelled to distant stars to verify exactly how far they are from Earth, or anyone who has ever directly weighed Jupiter to see if its mass is what we think it is?)
Holy crap! You mean warp drive is just in movies?!?!?!?!?!?
I don't have any good counter-evidence to doubt these things, but I certainly do in the case of ToE - the word of God.
noone sane claims they sat and watched every single organism or event over 4 billion years of common descent any more than geologists claim they've seen the centre of the earth or the forensics guys in the PD claim they observed the crimes they investigate taking place.
Yes, I know that. That's the point.
Yet you still have idiots saying both
1) ToE is a fact, AND
2) we believe what we have scientific evidence for.
Sorry that it bothers you that I point out obvious inconsistencies. If you don't like me repeating it, maybe you should get an answer that actually makes sense.
but when they assert it as impossible that the viruses could have simultaneously joined multiple varying species in the same way, it becomes apparent that they are just fitting an obscure point of science into a origins of life belief scheme they already had,
So presumably you (or a source you have access to) have data that shows examples of ERV insertions that can occur in multiple different species at the exact equivalent insertion points (given that I'm fairly sure ERV insertion occurs pretty much randomly - ask Abbie to verify this if need be, I'm not an expert on this subject), as well as doing it in a pattern that would look like common descent?
Based on what is known about ERVs, I think the odds of this happening have been roughly calculated and put it this way, I'd fancy my chances of getting back to back to back royal flushes at poker more than I'd fancy the odds of what you're claiming might have happened.
So presumably you (or a source you have access to) have data that shows examples of clouds of galactic dust coalescing into clods of mud and eventually into living beings that can occur in multiple different places at the exact conditions necessary to give rise to living organisms (given that I'm fairly sure galactic-dust-coalescence occurs pretty much randomly - ask NASA to verify this if need be, I'm not an expert on this subject), as well as doing it in a way that would look like it was random luck?
Based on what is known about the complexity and scarcity of life, I think the odds of this happening have been roughly calculated and put it this way, I'd fancy my chances of getting back to back to back royal flushes at poker more than I'd fancy the odds of what you're claiming might have happened.
(And yet, don't Darwinians argue this very same way in favor of their account of how, though the odds are astronomically low, so as to be for all intents and purposes zero, life just happened? "Well, improbable it may be, but here we are, so obviously we evolved that way.")
because of the inability of creationists to support their hypothesis - if animals do genuinely divide into archetypes, with humans distinct from all other animals, then instead of whining about evolution, lets see the data that supports this!
Did someone actually say this? If this is the best Dr. Funk has, he must know that he is wrong on some level even if he can't admit it to himself. Humans are distinct from other animals in that they are sentient beings with the capacity for abstract thought. Humans have complex emotions (which some animals may) that they can express through creative medium. Humans are the only animal who's survival is completely dependent on our ability to utilize tools. I know there are apes that can pick up a stick, but this is not essential to their survival as a species.
To take the argument to taxonomy, the science of classifying life forms, makes it purely semantic argument. As evidence is the fact that every two decades, the taxonomists reclassify fungi as their own kingdom or a phylum of plants in the alternative. You can call a life form whatever you want.
The argument that "the Bible is wrong because there is no evidence that humans are distinct from other animals" should be seen for what it is: an argument too flawed to pass the scientific standard or the laugh test. If Funk said in front of a typical audience, every member not in the tank for secular humanism would be laughing, but that is not a scientific test so I propose the following experiment.
We will have a debate between Dr. Funk and a chimpanzee that knows American sign language and see which one does better at the Q and A.
- BlackBlogger
Please stop trolling other forums. There is a vast difference between your claims of persecution on the Daily (hahahahaha!) and actively seeking out people to shoot you down. Grow up.
...said the troll.
Based on what is known about the complexity and scarcity of life, I think the odds of this happening have been roughly calculated and put it this way, I'd fancy my chances of getting back to back to back royal flushes at poker more than I'd fancy the odds of what you're claiming might have happened.
Right - life is improbable unless given very specific conditions - which explains why in the entire known universe (which I'm sure you'll agree is rather large), there is only one planet that we know of that supports any life never mind complex life, and that to the best of our knowledge in 4.5 billion years of the planet's existence it has happened precisely once (possibly twice if you agree with Carl Woese's ideas).
To expand on the ERVs, you do realise that all available data supports random insertions? Noone is saying in principle your hypothesis is impossible, they are saying you have zero evidential support for it.
So presumably you (or a source you have access to) have data that shows examples of clouds of galactic dust coalescing into clods of mud and eventually into living beings that can occur in multiple different places at the exact conditions necessary to give rise to living organisms (given that I'm fairly sure galactic-dust-coalescence occurs pretty much randomly - ask NASA to verify this if need be, I'm not an expert on this subject), as well as doing it in a way that would look like it was random luck?
That'd be a killer reply if there weren't known non-random processes such as Darwinian selection in operation in the world, or if it wasn't known that biological molecules can be created by an energy source such as lightning or thermal venting in a fairly simple mix of chemicals (all of which still occur in the real world) that can create a reducing atmosphere and so on.
(And yet, don't Darwinians argue this very same way in favor of their account of how, though the odds are astronomically low, so as to be for all intents and purposes zero, life just happened? "Well, improbable it may be, but here we are, so obviously we evolved that way.")
No, noone says 'it just happened' - they provide evidence for what happened, where and when (whether you like or agree with that evidence or not is another thing, but you can't accuse them of not providing it) as well as mechanisms that can drive these events (eg endosymbiosis, selection, drift, recombination etc etc)
On the other hand, if you're keen to keep bolstering your arguments with strawmen, knock yourself out!
Did someone actually say this? If this is the best Dr. Funk has, he must know that he is wrong on some level even if he can't admit it to himself. Humans are distinct from other animals in that they are sentient beings with the capacity for abstract thought. Humans have complex emotions (which some animals may) that they can express through creative medium. Humans are the only animal who's survival is completely dependent on our ability to utilize tools. I know there are apes that can pick up a stick, but this is not essential to their survival as a species.
It's not clear what your point (if indeed there is one) is here, or how this relates to what I've said.
Do you actually know what the central tenets of the creationist hypothesis are? You should be aware that the idea that there are distinct archetypes that organise into a so called orchard-like pattern isn't something I or some band of evolutionists have concocted - it's advanced by various creationists (eg Kurt Wise, Todd Wood), and is called baraminology. It's basically an attempt to come up with an objective means of classifying organisms into groups that are unrelated by common descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology
To take the argument to taxonomy, the science of classifying life forms, makes it purely semantic argument. As evidence is the fact that every two decades, the taxonomists reclassify fungi as their own kingdom or a phylum of plants in the alternative. You can call a life form whatever you want.
Given that guys with Harvard PhDs such as Kurt Wise recognise the importance of coming up with an objective taxonomic scheme for creationism, it appears 'taking the argument to taxonomy' puts me in fairly prestigious company on that front, so no qualms there.
Anyway, because there's some doubt over one particular group, then there's doubt over all classifications or relationships, and no hypotheses derived from the standard phylogenetic tree have been supported? Holy non-sequitur, Batman! Is pointing out that a chimp is more genetically similar to a human than a dog is a matter of 'semantics'? Or is it an observation based on all available evidence?
The argument that "the Bible is wrong because there is no evidence that humans are distinct from other animals" should be seen for what it is: an argument too flawed to pass the scientific standard or the laugh test.
That would a great point if that was actually anyone's argument.
If Funk said in front of a typical audience, every member not in the tank for secular humanism would be laughing, but that is not a scientific test so I propose the following experiment.
I'm not a secular humanist, so I couldn't care less what that group thinks. And I imagine that well educated creationists and evolutionists alike would be more baffled by your misplaced self-confidence given that it hasn't exactly been difficult to point out how ignorant you are of ideas that creationists themselves are attempting to advance.
We will have a debate between Dr. Funk and a chimpanzee that knows American sign language and see which one does better at the Q and A.
If you're going to resort to throwing insults around, it would generally help your cause if your points addressed what the person in question had actually said, rather than babbling irrelevant nonsense for a few paragraphs that only served to highlight your ignorance of what your own side believes as well as the other.
Post a Comment