Question with Boldness

[Jan Ardena]

Some things one "just needs to accept."
You expect that of others often.
But you are not doing us the same favor.

I've explained it makes no sense to me.
It is now for you to show the connection.

You need to be a little less vague, and just come flat
out with it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

I'm sick of you not using your brain, or pretending to be an idiot for the purposes of making me do extra work, or remaining so comfortable in your own ignorance that you never bother to learn enough to legitimately qualify you to participate in discussions like this, or whatever it is that you're doing.

Now you contend that I don't use my brain?
And what kind of a discussion is this why nothing I say is relative to it?
Is this how you conclude everything?

All you had to say was I can't produce what was asked of you.

I say this because even in spite of our previous exchanges, I'm finding it difficult to believe that you are really, genuinely, unable to see what goes on in the religious (creationist especially) camp. Perhaps it is simply more likely that you don't want to.

My initial point refered to ''belief in God'' a theistic position. You decided to wade in with ''religious people''.
You didn't differentiate, whereas I did, and have done all along.

Evolution is still the perfect modern-day example, since so many people who don't understand enough about it to appreciate the full force of it's explanatory power reject it in favour of 'God created biological entities fully-formed' ('God did it').

If you don't believe in evolution, you don't understand it.
That is your logic, therefore all arguments against it must be moot,
because for you, the challenger has no understanding, therefore no argument
In this way you convince yourself that evolution wins.

Nobody can prove evolution, you can't prove it, you accept it.

Interesting how you're trying to place a condition on this to give yourself a better chance of racking up a score, but it wont work. Unless that 'other reason or justification' includes a scientific theory that details the mechanisms that God employed to create life, then it still amounts to 'God did it'.

I don't have to try. You agreed that the theist replaces natural explanations with god did it, for no reason or rhyme.

Religious people conclude that god did it, and the reason may be simple, or even blind faith, but they have some justification. They just don't arrive at ''god did it''.

That's exactly what they do.

You put yourself in that position.

It's testimony to the fact that 'God did it' is all that can be produced as an alternative to a well-evidenced naturalistic explanation, since again no-one has ever developed a robust scientific theory that could stand up to peer-review to put in it's place instead.

That's just childishness.
You cannot prove that we are a product of step by step evolution, you accept it, because you accept the explanaions of current evidence that point to evolution. It doesn't mean that it is ''true''.
Truth is beyond evidence. We gather evidence to learn the truth about something. At what point do accept something as true?

God is truth, and reality, the supreme, original, person, by definition.
There can be no other truth by this definition.
How do you propose we go about finding the ultimate truth by science, when science is ignorant of the truth, hence it's method in trying understand it.

Again, your inability (or refusal) to take even a single baby step along the path of deductive reasoning is, well, 'unbelievable' is the only word I can find for it.
If all the evidence is there to see, and you choose to ignore it anyway, that is indeed a rejection.

He's saying that evidence isn't truth, and he also recognises that science is not about finding truth. He believes that God is the absolute truth, and that his life is meant for serving God.
Also, he hasn't ignored the evidence, he simply doesn't believe it supports evolution, which is most probably why he said ''if all the evidence turns against creationism....''

No, actually. You should bother to learn more about it. One of the fundamental problems is that people don't.

So knowing about evolution means acceptance of it.
Non acceptance of it mean you don't know about it.
Doesn't leave much room for anything. It's hardly reasonable.

But this is not how you typically characterize your position in the course of discussion here. You tend to speak with a tone of authority and even condescension about how it doesn't make sense, and imply that others feel the same way but just accept it anyway.

Do you have any recent posts to back this statement up?

EDIT: FYI, Abiogenesis is not part of the TOE. Evolutionary theory starts with the first simple biological organisms and works from there. So when you say 'molecule to man' when discussing evolution, you are inadvertently including a seperate theory in the discussion. Abiogenesis is not nearly as well evidenced as the TOE, but it's a very active area of research. Thus far, in labs, we have artificially created the chemical conditions within which organic compounds necessary for life are sythesized, and have had quite astonishing success creating complex self-replicating molecules. Even so, it must be said that we have only barely sighted the shore in terms of mapping out a workable theory of abiogenesis, but we have, afterall, only just begun.

I know what abiogenesis is.

I really don't see how that follows from a link I posted as an example of a religious person rejecting the most well evidenced scientific theory we have in favour of scriptural teachings.

That's what you thought you saw, that was what you want to see. But there is alot to what he says than you would like to think.


jan.

 

[Arioch]

Alright, time to clear this up because it's been bugging me. The theory of evolution is not the TOE. It's just referred to as the theory of evolution or evolutionary theory. TOE is what physicists are looking for right now, a theory of everything.

Sorry, it was just really bugging me.

 

[Rav]

All you had to say was I can't produce what was asked of you.

Excuse me? I gave you an example, more than once, and several more throughout the course of our exchange. What else do you want?

I'm guessing you possibly want me to wade through these forums, or articles on the internet, to find several more specific examples of theists who have substituted a well evidenced theory like evolution with what is essentially 'God did it', as if the millions of people in the world who are creationists don't count. Just when I thought you couldn't stoop any lower on the intellectual integrity scale.

The fact is that anyone who is reading this is going to know you're being obtuse, and that's all that really matters.

My initial point refered to ''belief in God'' a theistic position. You decided to wade in with ''religious people''.
You didn't differentiate, whereas I did, and have done all along.

I don't see how any distinction between 'religious' and 'belief in God' changes anything in regards to the arguments I've made.

If you don't believe in evolution, you don't understand it.

There's two things I would add to that: 1) you don't even try to understand it because you've already embraced an ancient scriptural explanation and 2) you do understand it, even to the point of being obligated to admit that all the evidence confirms it, but reject it anyway, in favour of an ancient scriptural explanation. Kurt Wise demonstrates a mentality that would make it possible to do the latter.

That is your logic, therefore all arguments against it must be moot,
because for you, the challenger has no understanding, therefore no argument
In this way you convince yourself that evolution wins.

If the 'challenger' has no understanding, then they do indeed have no argument. But evolution doesn't 'win' on that basis, it wins on the evidence.

Nobody can prove evolution, you can't prove it, you accept it.

Generally, when people make the argument you've just made, it usually turns out to have derived from the rather obvious fact that no-one has actually observed the process for the few hundred million years it would probably take to witness a transition from one species to something that is obviously and significantly different.

Short of that, yes we can prove it (and have), beyond all reasonable doubt.

Truth is beyond evidence. We gather evidence to learn the truth about something. At what point do accept something as true?

When a giant mountain of reliable and verifiable evidence points directly at it.

God is truth, and reality, the supreme, original, person, by definition.
There can be no other truth by this definition.

I thought the silly games had begun already, but obviously it was all just a warm up.

How do you propose we go about finding the ultimate truth by science, when science is ignorant of the truth, hence it's method in trying understand it.

All that really boils down to is the unsubstantiated assertion that God does indeed exist.

Also, he hasn't ignored the evidence, he simply doesn't believe it supports evolution, which is most probably why he said ''if all the evidence turns against creationism....''

It's funny how you think that someone who openly admits that they would ignore 'all the evidence in the universe' wouldn't be biased.

It would be like Richard Dawkins saying that he'd still embrace the TOE even if all the evidence in the universe turned against it. Creationists would be entirely and completely gobsmacked over that one (and then probably throw a decade long party), and it would pummel his credibility so far into the ground that it would be incinerated by the Earth's core.

But no, the reputation of Kurt Wise still magically remains intact concerning the matter in question, according to you. And thus, yours suffers further.

Do you have any recent posts to back this statement up?

Are you aware that the moment you ask for evidence of the supreme origin (a meaningless request), you kill the discussion. Not only for me, but for yourself as well. Another trick by the anti-God-ists.
The US court threw out ID because it is not what is required at this time.
You cannot control free people, or people who seriously want to be free.
Belief in God is the first step to this outcome.
ID makes the most sense, it's all so obvious.

It's so relevant to so many things we've discussed here, this particular post of yours. From stating that asking for evidence is a 'trick' that atheists use (as if it's a somehow underhanded tactic), to stating that the US supreme court threw out ID because 'it's not what's required at this time' (as if it somehow wasn't because the creationist camp couldn't convince the judge that creationism was actual science). And then, of course, the statement that 'ID makes the most sense, it's all so obvious'.

As for implying 'that others feel the same way but just accept it anyway', you've done that in this very thread.

That's what you thought you saw, that was what you want to see. But there is alot to what he says than you would like to think.

Got an example that is relevant to the context in which I originally posted the link?

 

[Rav]

Alright, time to clear this up because it's been bugging me. The theory of evolution is not the TOE. It's just referred to as the theory of evolution or evolutionary theory. TOE is what physicists are looking for right now, a theory of everything.

Sorry, it was just really bugging me.

I've seen it used as an abbreviation for the theory of evolution so many times when perusing the internet that I thought it to be a common practice. But if you're telling me instead that it's simply a common mistake (is technically incorrect) then I will, of course, refrain from making the same mistake again.

I have of course seen it used as an acronym for the Theory of Everything myself, but figured that context would sort out any possible confusion.

 

[Arioch]

@Rav --

I have no idea as to the origins of the term, but there was only a tiny bit of confusion which was cleared up by the taking the proper context into account. It's just my love of accuracy being spurred into action, nothing more than a large pet peeve.

You can, of course, continue to use that abbreviation if you wish, but it is not technically correct.

 

[wynn]

But this is not how you typically characterize your position in the course of discussion here. You tend to speak with a tone of authority and even condescension about how it doesn't make sense, and imply that others feel the same way but just accept it anyway.

I agree.
I have brought this up with him at least once before.

He said that all his posts are to be understood as being his opinion, and that it would be too much for him to always preface every comment he makes with "I think ..." or "In my opinion ..." etc.


Many of us do make the effort to preface our comments with "I think ..." or "In my opinion ..." etc.

It is not hard work, and it certainly helps in communication. Because this way, we make clear we are owning our statements - as opposed to - vainly - presenting ourselves as objective and authoritative.

 

[wynn]

I've explained it makes no sense to me.
It is now for you to show the connection.

You need to be a little less vague, and just come flat out with it.

I have explained my point clearly.
You don't see it because you don't want to see it.



(Above, I have mimicked your approach. Do you like that kind of communication?)

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Excuse me? I gave you an example, for than once, and several more throughout the course of our exchange. What else do you want?

Religious people conclude that god did it, and the reason may be simple, or even blind faith, but they have some justification. They just don't arrive at ''god did it''.

That's exactly what they do.

I want you show me a situation where ''god did it'' is replaced for a natural explanation of the universe. No reason, no justification, no knowledge, just ''god did it''.

I'm guessing you possibly want me to wade through these forums, or articles on the internet,

I want you to be honest and admit that you didn't mean that, or show me evidence, because if it is true, I find it remarkable espicially as you have entered me into that description.
Quit whining, and come up with the goods, or retaract.

The fact is that anyone who is reading this is going to know you're being obtuse, and that's all that really matters.

Well gee!
We are full of amazing claims aren't we?

I don't see how any distinction between 'religious' and 'belief in God' changes anything in regards to the arguments I've made.

Obviously.

If the 'challenger' has no understanding, then they do indeed have no argument. But evolution doesn't 'win' on that basis, it wins on the evidence.

That's sound okay, and I'm sure that is how you mind percieves it.
But the reality is, if the challenger disagrees with it, he is automatically accused of not understanding it. Therefore non agreement mean, no understandy.

Generally, when people make the argument you've just made, it usulually turns out to have derived from the rather obvious fact that no-one has actually observed the process for the few hundred million years it would probably take to witness a transition from one species to something that is obviously and significantly different.

There is that, yes.

Short of that, yes we can prove it (and have), beyond all reasonable doubt.

So you can prove one type of species changes into another?
Shoot.

When a giant mountain of reliable and verifiable evidence points directly at it.

I told you some of us don't see evidence the same way you do.
Which is why I'm glad that you're going to show me something concrete that justifies your attitude.

I thought the silly games had begun already, but obviously it was all just a warm up.

There's no point in discussing this with you, is there?

All that really boils down to is the unsubstantiated assertion that God does indeed exist.

Unsubtantiated, because there is no physical artifact to say ''here is God'', but you already know that is not the case, so why ask for it.
Your only position is one of not believing, everything else is your personal opinion.
Show me one species completely change into another, less evolution is nonsense. Can you do that? Or is my request unreasonable?

It's funny how you think that someone who openly admits that they would ignore 'all the evidence in the universe' wouldn't be biased.

First he ''rejected'' it, now he ''ignores'' it.
Rav, at what point in science do we say this is the truth?
He knows that science is not about truth, you don't.

He said: even if all the evidence goes against creationism, he would still believe in God.
Because evidence doesn't amount to truth.
That's not ''rejecting'' or ''ignoring'', that's understanding the difference between matter, spirit.
You don't have that, and you never did, which is why you don't get where he's coming from.

But no, the reputation of Kurt Wise still magically remains intact concerning the matter in question, according to you. And thus, yours suffers further.

I don't know why his reputation is an issue.
Does his position make him any less of a scientist?
He seem very honest and open to me.

I think you could learn something from him.

From stating that asking for evidence is a 'trick' that atheists use (as if it's a somehow underhanded tactic),

It is, as I've explained.

...to stating that the US supreme court threw out ID because 'it's not what's required at this time' (as if it somehow wasn't because the creationist camp couldn't convince the judge that creationism was actual science). And then, of course, the statement that 'ID makes the most sense, it's all so obvious'.

That's my opinion. As I said, it makes more sense to me.

Got an example that is relevant to the context in which I originally posted the link?

It doesn't matter what context, you've inserted words, and feelings to give one impression, but ignored what he actually said against the backdrop of his scientific background, in the context of God, belief of whom you think is a joke.
You're not in a position at present to make an honest comment on his revelation, because you are hopelessly biased. He rejects evolution, so that automatically means he doesn't understand it. But should he change his mind, then his position is that he does understand it.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have explained my point clearly.
You don't see it because you don't want to see it.



(Above, I have mimicked your approach. Do you like that kind of communication?)

Signal, clarify or don't.
I can't be any clearer or fairer than that.


jan.

 

[wynn]

Signal, clarify or don't.
I can't be any clearer or fairer than that.

*You are just being evasive. I don't have time for that.*

 

[Jan Ardena]

*You are just being evasive. I don't have time for that.*

There is no evidence of that.
I genuinely cannot relate that section to anything we are discussing.
I cannot express that with anymore good intention than it's written in now.

jan.

 

[Rav]

I want you to be honest and admit that you didn't mean that, or show me evidence, because if it is true, I find it remarkable espicially as you have entered me into that description.

Asked an answered, several times now.

But the reality is, if the challenger disagrees with it, he is automatically accused of not understanding it. Therefore non agreement mean, no understandy.

Or not even trying to understand it, or rejecting it even if willing to concede that all the evidence points towards it.

So you can prove one type of species changes into another?
Shoot.

If proof could be offered in a short forum post, far fewer people would be creationists. Evolutionary theory is a science, so if you want to emancipate yourself from your ignorance, you'll need to spend a decent amount of time learning some. You don't have to become an evolutionary biologist (thankfully) but at the very least you'd need to do a significant amount of reading.

It would be just like you, though, to sit back on your lazy arse and demand that other people do all the work for you, kind of like the time you misinterpreted the word 'observer' in a physics article you read and demanded that I prove that it wasn't demonstrating that 'consciousness' causes wave-function collapse. So off and I went and spent considerable amount of time locating the original paper, familiarized myself with the particulars, and provided an explanation for what was really going on, complete with references. I decided right then and there, based on your response, that I'd never bother to waste so much time on someone like you ever again. You don't want to learn, you just want to believe. I can understand and even appreciate the wanting to believe part, but the rest of it warrants no respect at all.

I told you some of us don't see evidence the same way you do.

Clearly. Some choose to put the most unreliable form of evidence of all ahead of everything else.

Unsubtantiated, because there is no physical artifact to say ''here is God''

Reliable verifiable evidence of God interacting with the world be enough, even if God himself isn't physical.

Your only position is one of not believing, everything else is your personal opinion.

Except for when a theistic belief contradicts a well evidenced scientific theory.

He knows that science is not about truth, you don't.

Absurd.

He said: even if all the evidence goes against creationism, he would still believe in God.
Because evidence doesn't amount to truth.
That's not ''rejecting'' or ''ignoring'', that's understanding the difference between matter, spirit.

It is a rejection of 'all the evidence in the universe'.

You don't have that, and you never did, which is why you don't get where he's coming from.

That's where you're wrong, and I've told you this before. I used to be a Christian myself. Not just a casual Sunday Christian, but a zealous 'born-again' Christian who prayed every day, studied the Bible religiously, proselytized to a countless number of people and read every single Christian evidences book I could get my hands on (including, at least in the beginning, a number of books that sought to discredit evolutionary theory). I took it upon myself to sharpen my knowledge to a fine point so I could intelligently respond to any question that any atheist ever threw at me (1 Peter 3:15). Moreover, I genuinely felt the 'spirit of God' in my life, and would have characterized it then as a true communion that simply couldn't be possible if there was no-one on the other end of it.

I understand where religious people are coming from.

I don't know why his reputation is an issue.
Does his position make him any less of a scientist?
He seem very honest and open to me.

I think you could learn something from him.

Yeah, I could learn how to be someone who would willingly reject all the scientific evidence in the universe in favour of what he thinks ancient scripture demands that he believes. No thanks. Toward the end of my time as a Christian I embraced theistic evolution (as do many other people who believe in God) since by this stage I had done some 'other' learning. It has the much more respectable feature of not so directly and obviously contradicting the most well evidenced theory in all of science. It's a much more tenable position. You still have the problem of trying to demonstrate God's hand in it (you can't), but at least it puts you in the position of being able to embrace the science as an account of how God did everything, and you don't have to abandon your faith if you really want to keep it.

It doesn't matter what context, you've inserted words, and feelings to give one impression, but ignored what he actually said against the backdrop of his scientific background, in the context of God, belief of whom you think is a joke.

All I did was to present it as an example of someone who rejected science in favour of what ancient scripture teaches.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Asked an answered, several times now.

No you haven't.

Or not even trying to understand it, or rejecting it even if willing to concede that all the evidence points towards it.

Non agreement of evolution automatically means not understanding evolution.
That means one can only understand evolution if one agrees that it is correct.
So unless one ACTUALLY understand it in it's entirety (as far as the evidence goes) one must accept evolution on blind faith.

If proof could be offered in a short forum post, far fewer people would be creationists.

And if God could be offered in a short forum posts, there would only be theists and satanists.

Evolutionary theory is a science, so if you want to emancipate yourself from your ignorance, you'll need to spend a decent amount of time learning some. You don't have to become an evolutionary biologist (thankfully) but at the very least you'd need to do a significant amount of reading.

Let's translate that;

Evolution theory is the new belief system, so if you want to emancipate yourself from ignorance, you'll need to accept it whether you believe it is or not. You don't have to become a biologist (thankfully), but at the very least you'd need to do a significant amount of reading to give the impression you understand it.

I told you some of us don't see evidence the same way you do.

Clearly. Some choose to put the most unreliable form of evidence of all ahead of everything else.

Okay, let's run with this.
What about the others?

Reliable verifiable evidence of God interacting with the world be enough, even if God himself isn't physical.

Like what?

Except for when a theistic belief contradicts a well evidenced scientific theory.

Okay, I'm going to ask you more personal questions.
Why does the evidence specifically point to evolution?
Can you give me some examples?

Absurd.

Is science about finding truth?

It is a rejection of 'all the evidence in the universe'.

Are you really this dim, or are just pretending?

That's where you're wrong, and I've told you this before. I used to be a Christian myself. Not just a casual Sunday Christian, but a zealous 'born-again' Christian who prayed every day, studied the Bible religiously, proselytized to a countless number of people and read every single Christian evidences book I could get my hands on (including, at least in the beginning, a number of books that sought to discredit evolutionary theory).

I noticed in your passionate appeal to experience, you didn't mention God.
Who and what was God, why you became a ''zealot''?
What was the subject of your daily prayer (optional)?
And when you proselytized, how did you present God to the multitudes?

I took it upon myself to sharpen my knowledge to a fine point so I could intelligently respond to any question that any atheist ever threw at me (1 Peter 3:15).

The same could be said for your new found faith, evolution?

Moreover, I genuinely felt the 'spirit of God' in my life, and would have characterized it then as a true communion that simply couldn't be possible if there was no-one on the other end of it.


I understand where religious people are coming from.

That you use the term ''religious people'' in and of itself shows that you're just applying labels without meaning, especially in the context of understanding them. These are the kind of statements you're allowed to get away with without question. But coming back to what you said;

You said you genuinely felt the spirit of God in your life, then you go on to say he wasn't at the end of these feelings.
What makes you think it was the spirit of God?
If you now believe it wasn't the spirit of God, why do you believe so?
And what did you expect to happen why you conclude god wasn't there?

Yeah, I could learn how to be someone who would willingly reject all the scientific evidence in the universe in favour of what he thinks ancient scripture demands that he believes. No thanks.

Rav, stop kidding yourself.
He didn't reject it, and he hasn't ignored it.
You say that because it justifies your believe that God doesn't exist.
I think you just want to shut God out, but deep down you can't.
Nothing matches up to God (ontological), you either believe in him or you don't. There is no more or less we can do.

Toward the end of my time as a Christian I embraced theistic evolution (as do many other people who believe in God) since by this stage I had done some 'other' learning.

What was the point of that?
Couldn't you accept that God caused all the lifeforms?

It has the much more respectable feature of not so directly and obviously contradicting the most well evidenced theory in all of science.

So, shit was happening and you didn't want to feel stupid or left out?
Would you regard that as a trend?

It's a much more tenable position. You still have the problem of trying to demonstrate God's hand in it (you can't), but at least it puts you in the position of being able to embrace the science as an account of how God did everything, and you don't have to abandon your faith if you really want to keep it.

But it wasn't enough to have a part of this, you wanted the whole nine yards, and so jumped from the not cool ship to the cool ship?

All I did was to present it as an example of someone who rejected science in favour of what ancient scripture teaches.

No you didn't. You used it for that purpose, because the wording doesn't take alot of manipulating (or so you thought), meaning it can be used as another weapon against theism, and God.
You claim to be scientific, well-read, rational, and logical, but you have stuck to this one description without trying and understand where he is coming from.


jan.

 

[Rav]

Non agreement of evolution automatically means not understanding evolution.
That means one can only understand evolution if one agrees that it is correct.
So unless one ACTUALLY understand it in it's entirety (as far as the evidence goes) one must accept evolution on blind faith.

What a load of complete and utter nonsense.

Let's translate that;

Evolution theory is the new belief system, so if you want to emancipate yourself from ignorance, you'll need to accept it whether you believe it is or not. You don't have to become a biologist (thankfully), but at the very least you'd need to do a significant amount of reading to give the impression you understand it.

Another load of complete and utter nonsense.

Okay, let's run with this.
What about the others?

Such as?

Like what?

Anything we could test for using the scientific method.

Okay, I'm going to ask you more personal questions.
Why does the evidence specifically point to evolution?
Can you give me some examples?

You have a comprehension problem, don't you?

Is science about finding truth?

Sure. Science has uncovered many truths about the nature of reality.

I noticed in your passionate appeal to experience, you didn't mention God.
Who and what was God, why you became a ''zealot''?
What was the subject of your daily prayer (optional)?
And when you proselytized, how did you present God to the multitudes?

First of all, it wasn't a passionate appeal, it was a factual synopsis.

I shared what I did to demonstrate that you were completely wrong when you suggested that I didn't know where religious people were coming from, not to open to door to a theological pissing contest where you'll likely try to suggest that my experiences weren't genuine or powerful or 'correct' enough for them to be valid. Besides, I reserve more intimate discussions about my own religious experiences for different circumstances.

How about you tell me all about yours, in all the detail that you demand that others do, and I'll tell you if I can see anything unique or profound in them that I didn't experience myself.

The same could be said for your new found faith, evolution?

Science can legitimately be seen as the evolution of naturalistic philosophy to the scientific method. Where it was once enough to string a bunch of logical arguments together and perhaps perform a few very basic experiments before reaching something of a definitive conclusion, eventually we got to the point where we demanded much, much more of ourselves. And so the state of things today is such that the highest importance is placed on repetition, verification and peer review. It's a slow, tedious, exacting and unforgiving process, and it is absolutely the best tool we have for understanding the natural world. Therefore to call the most well evidenced theory to ever emerge from this method a 'faith' just makes you look utterly moronic.

Rav, stop kidding yourself.
He didn't reject it, and he hasn't ignored it.

If you're going to inject yourself into an infinite loop, I am just going to cut and paste.

It would be like Richard Dawkins saying that he'd still embrace the TOE even if all the evidence in the universe turned against it. Creationists would be entirely and completely gobsmacked over that one (and then probably throw a decade long party), and it would pummel his credibility so far into the ground that it would be incinerated by the Earth's core.

But no, the reputation of Kurt Wise still magically remains intact concerning the matter in question, according to you. And thus, yours suffers further.

What was the point of that?
Couldn't you accept that God caused all the lifeforms?

I did, initially, especially after reading all those critiques of evolution. But then I started learning some actual science.

So, shit was happening and you didn't want to feel stupid or left out?
Would you regard that as a trend?

Try reading what you've responded to again, especially the part about contradicting the most well evidenced theory in all of science.

But it wasn't enough to have a part of this, you wanted the whole nine yards, and so jumped from the not cool ship to the cool ship?

Meh. Again, it's about the science.

No you didn't. You used it for that purpose, because the wording doesn't take alot of manipulating (or so you thought), meaning it can be used as another weapon against theism, and God.
You claim to be scientific, well-read, rational, and logical, but you have stuck to this one description without trying and understand where he is coming from.

What? It is these ancient scriptures that so often lead people to reject important science. I mean, just take a look at this guy:

http://krishna.org/life-comes-from-life/

 

[wynn]

Non agreement of evolution automatically means not understanding evolution.
That means one can only understand evolution if one agrees that it is correct.
So unless one ACTUALLY understand it in it's entirety (as far as the evidence goes) one must accept evolution on blind faith.

What a load of complete and utter nonsense.

Actually, I tend to agree with Jan here.

It points to a formal problem with many practical implications.
It is the same problem that occurs in theism, and anywhere else.

Mental (or semantic) holism is the doctrine that the identity of a belief content (or the meaning of a sentence that expresses it) is determined by its place in the web of beliefs or sentences comprising a whole theory or group of theories. It can be contrasted with two other views: atomism and molecularism. Molecularism characterizes meaning and content in terms of relatively small parts of the web in a way that allows many different theories to share those parts. For example, the meaning of 'chase' might be said by a molecularist to be try to catch. Atomism characterizes meaning and content in terms of none of the web; it says that sentences and beliefs have meaning or content independently of their relations to other sentences or beliefs.

One major motivation for holism has come from reflections on the natures of confirmation and learning. As Quine (1953) observed, claims about the world are confirmed not individually, but only in conjunction with theories of which they are a part. And typically, one cannot come to understand scientific claims without understanding a significant chunk of the theory of which they are a part.

For example, in learning the Newtonian concepts of 'force', 'mass', kinetic energy' and 'momentum', one doesn't learn any definitions of these terms in terms that are understood beforehand, for there are no such definitions. Rather, these theoretical terms were all learned together in conjunction with procedures for solving problems.

http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/faculty/block/papers/MentalSemanticHolism.html

 

[Rav]

Originally Posted by Rav

Non agreement of evolution automatically means not understanding evolution.
That means one can only understand evolution if one agrees that it is correct.
So unless one ACTUALLY understand it in it's entirety (as far as the evidence goes) one must accept evolution on blind faith.

What a load of complete and utter nonsense.

Actually, I tend to agree with Jan here.

It points to a formal problem with many practical implications.
It is the same problem that occurs in theism, and anywhere else.

The nonsense I was speaking of is two-fold. First, the suggestion that one can only understand evolution if one agrees that it's correct is completely backwards, and is far removed from the reality of how someone would typically reach an understanding of it. The process of acquiring knowledge begins with open-mindedness and a willingness to put in the requisite effort, and it's perfectly fine to begin in a state of compete ignorance regarding the subject matter. Having said that though when I first began learning about it I was heavily biased against it, and was just trying to arm myself with a better understanding of the opponents arguments. I think, then, that the minimum requirement is simply a willingness to put in the effort, and enough intellectual integrity (and courage) to allow the pieces to fall into the places that the evidence demands that they fall into. I really do mean it when I say courage too, because I was still a Christian who spent the overwhelming majority of my time with other Christians, and had some difficulty trying to justify to some of them why I was even reading such books. Additionally, it was difficult for me to reconcile evolution with Christian theology, so I guess you could say the foundations had started to shake a little. That's a pretty scary thing when you've based the entire meaning of your existence on them. Anyway, I'm getting a little off point.

Second, no-one is saying (well, certainly not me) that one should accept evolution on faith if one doesn't understand it. That's just ridiculous. What one should obviously do, instead, is simply set out to learn more about it. But it doesn't even particularly bother me if they don't want to, as long as they are also willing to refrain from making judgments about it's veracity.

 

[wynn]

The nonsense I was speaking of is two-fold. First, the suggestion that one can only understand evolution if one agrees that it's correct is completely backwards, and is far removed from the reality of how someone would typically reach an understanding of it.

Consider this line of reasoning (not meant as a syllogism, but merely as related premises):

In order for something to make sense, it has to be true, it has to reflect "things as they really are."
If something is true, then we cannot but agree with it; if we don't agree with it, we are deliberately placing ourselves in delusion.
If we invest our efforts into understanding something, it means we believe it is worth it.
What we believe to be worthwhile, we believe to be true.
When we agree with something, we believe it is true.
When something makes sense to us, we believe it is true.

A paradox can trick us and a logical fallacy can disturb us precisely because we operate out of the idea that "that which makes sense, is true."

When we specifically focus on this idea, we are not likely to agree with it. But we tend to operate on it when we are not aware of it.

Second, no-one is saying (well, certainly not me) that one should accept evolution on faith if one doesn't understand it. That's just ridiculous. What one should obviously do, instead, is simply set out to learn more about it. But it doesn't even particularly bother me if they don't want to, as long as they are also willing to refrain from making judgments about it's veracity.

Any act of learning or being engaged with something is accompanied by specific cognitive, psychological, moral and possibly other issues that do not directly have to do with the topic we engage with, but which nonetheless greatly influence how we engage with it.

/.../
A Foolish Fortress

More interesting to me, though, was the effect upon the rest of the audience. At the end of the question period, the two recruiters were faced with a crush of audience members submitting their seventy-five-dollar down payments for admission to the TM program. Nudging, shrugging, and chuckling to one another as they took in the payments, the recruiters betrayed signs of giddy bewilderment.

Outside the lecture room after the meeting, we were approached by three members of the audience, each of whom had given a down payment immediately after the lecture. They wanted to know why we had come to the session. We explained, and we asked the same question of them.

[The group spokesman] put it best: “Well, I wasn’t going to put down any money tonight because I’m really quite broke right now; I was going to wait until the next meeting. But when your buddy started talking, I knew I’d better give them my money now, or I’d go home and start thinking about what he said and NEVER sign up.”

All at once, things began to make sense. These were people with real problems; and they were somewhat desperately searching for a way to solve those problems. They were seekers who, if our discussion leaders were to be believed, had found a potential solution in Transcendental Meditation. Driven by their needs, they very much wanted to believe that TM was the answer.

Now, in the form of my colleague, intrudes the voice of reason, showing the theory underlying their newfound solution to be unsound. Panic! Something must be done at once before logic takes its toll, and leaves them without hope again. Quickly, quickly, walls against reason are needed; and it doesn’t matter that the fortress to be erected is a foolish one.


http://www.martialdevelopment.com/blog/comforts-of-mindless-consistency/

Fortunately or unfortunately, our psychology, moral principles and practical considerations tend to be a step ahead of our reason ...

 

[Jan Ardena]

Rav,

Such as?

''Clearly. Some choose to put the most unreliable form of evidence of all ahead of everything else. ''

Anything we could test for using the scientific method.

You mean something like a universe?

You have a comprehension problem, don't you?

No.
Answer the question?

Sure. Science has uncovered many truths about the nature of reality.

Not the same as finding the truth.
Roads that lead to a destination, are not the destination.

I shared what I did to demonstrate that you were completely wrong when you suggested that I didn't know where religious people were coming from,

I mentioned nothing about ''where religious people are coming from''.
Do you have a comprehension problem.

not to open to door to a theological pissing contest where you'll likely try to suggest that my experiences weren't genuine or powerful or 'correct' enough for them to be valid.

Your whole premise is off target.
You need to acutally listen to what I say, and not generalise.

Therefore to call the most well evidenced theory to ever emerge from this method a 'faith' just makes you look utterly moronic.

Maybe, but I don't see why the available evidence is so definately leads to evolution, as opposed to you want it to be.
This is in regard to the personal request I made earlier.

If you're going to inject yourself into an infinite loop, I am just going to cut and paste.

Oh yes! It's a fact purely because you say so.
The truth of the matter is, you didn't, and i would be very surprised if you could, given the words that Mr. Wise used.

You're still a part of the institute Rav.

I did, initially, especially after reading all those critiques of evolution. But then I started learning some actual science.

So how did those books squash your belief?

Try reading what you've responded to again, especially the part about contradicting the most well evidenced theory in all of science.

That's your idea of the theory, not mine.

Meh. Again, it's about the science.

No it's not.
It's all about you.


jan.

 

[wynn]

And if God could be offered in a short forum posts, there would only be theists and satanists.

You are actually a charlatan, you know? You are cheating on us!
All you give us is dry (pseudo)philosophy, when according to your own religious tradition, there are six loving exchanges, four of which have nothing to do with talking.

(Chances are that I will now be told what could I possibly know of your religious tradition, since I am not part of it ... which is an objection I cannot refute ... so we continue having these discussions ... and some of us continue to feel cheated.)