Highway of Life wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:but I can back up what I'm saying.
And I can back up what I’m saying, which makes your argument look really obnoxious.
No you can't. There is no giant conspiracy theory required for evolution, unlike creationism which requires a giant century-long global scientific conspiracy. You can't pretend the two are equal on this score, no matter how hard you try.
So do you believe in the Global Warming we now know as “ClimateGate”?
1) "ClimateGate" has nothing to do with evolution.
2) The individuals involved in "ClimateGate" were actually cleared
of wrongdoing. Naturally, this did not get the press coverage that the original story did.
3) CO2 greenhouse warming theory was never dependent upon anything the ClimateGate researchers did.
As a rational mind, I would think you would learn to question conclusions and not just blindly buy anything the scientific community fed you. I am a fan of science, but I have learned to question everything. There is a reason “Evolution Theory” is known as a Theory.
I addressed this in a previous post. There is nothing perjorative about the word "theory" in science. The question is whether it's a good theory or a bad one. Questioning it because it's called a "theory" is just plain ignorant.
I just watched a liberal program on evolution today that admitted they had not found the “missing link” that they’ve been looking for that would prove that Humans and Apes evolved from a common ancestor. Without taking this so far off topic with evolution vs. creation, my point is that it’s a theory for a reason.
See above, And this conveniently unnamed "liberal program" of yours is simply false. This is what happens when people learn science from TV instead of going to university. Here's a nice list
of hominid fossils for you. Anyone who says they've never found this "missing link" is spouting nonsense.
Darth Wong wrote:Word substitution does not change the fact that there are scientific criteria for a valid theory. Evolution meets them, and creationism does not.
That’s purely YOUR opinion, and others, that is only one side to the story. An equal number of others hold an opposite opinion. At least I’m willing to admit that others have a valid opinion, even if I think it’s wrong, it doesn’t mean it’s invalid, it just means that we cannot agree on a common truth, which is the very nature of mankind. I’m surprised a rational mind couldn’t see that.
Science is not a matter of opinion. There is an actual scientific method, and a proper definition of a scientific theory. If you are ignorant of that definition, then you have no business talking about science at all. A scientific theory must have a defined mechanism, which can be used to derive specific predictions. Without that, it's not a scientific theory. Creationism does not meet this requirement. Evolution does.
Yes, and with ClimateGate, we were proven that there are indeed valid conspiracy theories. What else does it prove? It means we question everything. I’m not suggesting that there is or is not a conspiracy here. I’m suggesting that it be questioned. But for a man of no-faith, you’re putting a lot of faith into a theory.
A theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something. It is not “fact”. The Big Bang theory is a theory for a reason. Even though I believe it’s true, it’s still a theory.
Again, you ignore the fact that ClimateGate was mostly a right-wing smear job, and you keep acting as if "theory" means "weak". You really
need to go to school and learn something about the scientific method.
Darth Wong wrote:No, I accuse you of being foolish. You don't know any better.
And I could accuse you of being foolish as well, you don’t know any better. It still goes both ways.
I have university training in the sciences, and I've proven my point by explaining what is actually required for a scientific theory. You, on the other hand, are speaking entirely in terms of politics and opinion. Your arguments would not look at all out of place in a political discussion rather than a scientific one, which is where I suspect you get most of your scientific opinions. Your completely irrelevant inclusion of "ClimateGate" is a good example of that.
I’m not going to say: “oh, but my opinion is correct and the only truth”. As a rational mind, I know it’s not. I expected other rational minds to at least think things through. I know for a fact that you believe your beliefs are completely true and there is no other way. But isn’t that what you’re accusing me of?
You're still talking about personalities and opinions. I have explained what makes creationism scientifically unacceptable, and you have ignored this. You would obviously much rather talk in these vague unscientific political-style arguments about personalities and opinions, and not about what does or doesn't constitute science. You actually think "theory" means "weak", and you think I should not be accusing you of scientific ignorance?
Darth Wong wrote:Moreover, an accusation of creationist dishonesty
Wow, I’m shocked, is there not any dishonesty among evolutionists? They are just a completely trustful and 100% truthful group? Does that go both ways as well, or is this just your opinion?
You do understand that part of the scientific method is independent verifiabiliy, right? That's part of how science works: we don't
have to trust any individual to be an anointed holy prophet. So your reverse-claim carries no weight: religion requires absolute faith in individuals, but science does not. Not unless you assume they're all participating in a giant conspiracy.
Darth Wong wrote:Except I never said that. I never said that Christians can't be moral. You, on the other hand, have said that you can't understand how anyone can be moral without your religion.
And I also did not say that. I question how you can define morality when there is no basis for a code of ethics among non-believers
I can't believe your gall. You just said it again!
You just repeated your claim that non-believers are utterly bereft of any basis for a code of ethics, in the same sentence where you denied saying it!
How can you say that your moral code is any better than an Islamic who holds very different beliefs from both you and me, and would say that his moral code is the true and correct basis for ethics? Who’s to say that your next door neighbor does not commit many of these moral and ethical crimes that you and I can see are wrong, but he believes is not wrong. It’s a very subjective system, isn’t it?
Sure, your monstrously distorted version of humanist ethics is very subjective. The original one is not. Human rights (a humanist ethics invention) are actually defined as universal.
Darth Wong wrote:Wrong. I know precisely how Christians think. You believe in something because it feels so right. The logic doesn't completely track, but that doesn't matter because some things are beyond logic. After all, there's love, and hope, and faith, right? Logic is overrated, right? I've read the Bible. I've attended hundreds of church services. I married a Christian. I know Christians vastly better than you know atheists.
This statement alone proves that you don’t know Christians as well as you think you do. Did you consider that I might know Christians better than you because I am a Christian, and you’re not? Don’t you think I would know what we think and believe? Not all Atheists hold the exact same beliefs or think the exact same way, nor think the exact things you do. I’ve seen you argue with them here in GD. You think Christians throw out logic, actually, I believe it’s atheists who are throwing out logic.
Of course you believe
that. But you have utterly failed to explain that belief. I can even point out the specific logic principle that Christians are ignoring: Ockham's Razor, aka the logical principle of parsimony. What have you done? All you do is keep harping on opinion and personality.
Because I can’t see how a logical mind can’t see God. It’s clear to me that you don’t understand Christians any more than you understand God or who he is. Anymore than you claim I misunderstand atheists. It’s subjective again, isn’t it? But no, you are the only one with all the correct answers. That’s called bigotry, when you can’t tolerate those who hold different opinions to yours.
See above. I actually pointed out the specific logic principle you're ignoring. You, on the other hand, keep using words like "science" and "logic" but your argument is couched in neither: all of your arguments are focused on personality and opinion.
There is a funny billboard that comes to mind:
“I don’t believe in you either.
What's really funny is that a human had to put it up.
Here's a challenge for you: try to argue your case using the language of logic and science
, without reference to politics, personality, or opinion. If you say I'm ignoring logic, then don't just make vague reference to how you could point out flaws in my logic just as easily as I point out flaws in yours; instead, actually do
it by identifying and naming specific logic fallacies I'm employing, just as I did for you. If you say I'm misusing science, then don't just make vague reference to how you could identify flaws in my scientific reasoning just as easily as I did yours: actually do
it, by explaining the scientific principle or aspect of the scientific method that I've got wrong. Your argument is heavy on opinions about logic and science, but remarkably short on actual
logic and science.