nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 177:
Line 177: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→response to top section: Both creation and naturalism have assumptions at their foundations.
-Damien
-Damien
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers
PS sorry about the post, formatting (and double post)at the top of this page ,if you can delete it please do so it is missing a lot of key sentances and is just messing up your page. again I'm sorry, i am very bad with computers
: "''How do you plan to experiment to gain evidance of senerio 3. To make it a scienetific view point.''": I don't. All science is built on assumptions. How do we prove scientifically that we can trust our senses when we make scientific observations? How do we scientifically prove that our brains are correctly understanding what we observe? How do we scientifically prove that the laws of science have always been the same? Or are always the same throughout the universe? None of these can be scientifically proved. They are all foundational assumptions that we make. Many scientists also make the foundational assumptions that everything can be explained without resorting to invoking the supernatural, but that assumption can't be scientifically proved either. And some have a foundational assumption that the Bible accurately describes history. That also cannot be proved scientifically.
: "''The only thing you can do right now is take for granted a religious text.''": You say that as though a "religious text" is inherently unreliable, but what we are talking about here is claimed to be an account provided by the omniscient and infallible Creator, and if that claim is correct, there is no reason to doubt its accuracy.
: "''There are many that claim to be true and historic (Christian and other wise).''": See [[biblical accuracy]]. A very large number of the Bible's claims can be tested, and very many of those claims have been shown to be correct.
: "''It’s clear they all can’t be true they are often contradictory. So you pick one and follow it with faith.''": We don't just "pick one" like tossing a coin. As alluded to above, the Bible has withstood a great deal of scrutiny.
: "''In creation science all data must be fitted to this view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out''": In evolution, all data must be fitted to that view, even if it is not the simplest way to account for the data, even if it takes a stretch to fit. Other data is simply not believed and thrown out
: "''(ie Dating methods-an argument in it self not my main point).''": Incorrect. Dating methods are refuted with solid arguments. They are not simply "thrown out".
: "''It’s not a wrong view, It’s just not scientific.''": So why do so many people use science to say that it is the ''wrong'' view? And how is it different from evolution in this regard?
: "''Science is not biased like this...''": No, science isn't, but ''scientists'' often are.
: "''...unless you truly believe there is a scientific conspiracy to destroy the Christian view...''": No, I don't.
: "''...and that they interpret data not to make the simplest account for a result...''": No, they interpret data according to their naturalistic worldview.
: "''...but rather to disagree with Christianity...''": Yep, some of them do that[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/703/].
: "''...and perhaps sometimes make up data just to attack Christianity...''": Yep, some do that too. See [[Flat Earth]]. Note that I'm still ''not'' claiming "scientific conspiracy", just individuals prepared to bend the truth to discredit Christianity, and gullible followers who swallow that.
: "''Scientist disregard all data about dataing from creation scientists not on the merits of the dating, but because it is pro-god...''": Yep, there's evidence of that. See Lewontin quote linked above, for one. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4138/ here] for another.
: "''...or created evolution theory to attack the view of god...''": According to evolutionist Michael Ruse, "...Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity."[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4139/].
: "''...our main theories-gravity, evolution etc ...''": Gravity is an example of something that we can observe and test. Microbe-to-man evolution is not observable or testable. They are like chalk and cheese, and evolution has contributed little to science, so it barely qualifies as a "main theory".
: "''...deceits are found reasonably quickly.''": But we are not talking about deceit, but about a worldview that excludes God ''a priori''.
: "''However if you believe in this mass conspiracy of scientists(why? to what end?)...''": As I said, I don't. That is, I don't believe in a large number of scientists agreeing together to put forward a view that they know to be untrue.
: "''As you stated before a lot of (not all as you asserted) modern science was started by Christians...''": I said modern science generally, not every single field of science.
: "''...most people in that part of the world at that time were Christian by default''": As I pointed out, that they were Christians was not coincidental, but the reason they started science.
: "''They were coming from a bias of god created the world and the sun revolves around the earth etc.''": No, they were coming from the ''basis'' (not bias) that God created the world. The idea that the sun revolves around the Earth predated the science (it originated with secular views) and was one of the first things thrown out by those creationary scientists.
: "''That is what is happening today.''": That is what is ''supposed'' to happen with science, but that is not what is happening with evolution.
: "''I know many Christian scientists (I guess you’d say they are not Christian?)''": No, I would not say that. And every point like this that you've got wrong is a point where I take the standard view of the leading creationists. That you have so idea what creationists actually believe shows that you really have very little idea of the idea that you are arguing against. Do you agree with arguing from ignorance?
: "''As they learn more about science and start participating in research themselves they start taking some portions of the bible as metaphore, (as is nessisary by the sound evidence of many modern theories)...''": No, it is not necessary. I also know many Christians who are scientists, and they don't see the need for this.
: "''...while still believing the underlying teachings of the bible (based solely on faith--not science).''": Teaching based on events that didn't occur are meaningless (e.g. a teaching of the Bible is that when a man and woman marry, they become one, because they were one originally (i.e. God made Eve from Adam). So if they weren't one originally (Adam and Eve didn't exist), where does that leave the "underlying" teachings?). And biblical faith is trust ''based on evidence'', not without or contrary to the evidence.[http://tektonics.org/whatis/whatfaith.html]
: "''If it was a severly biased system where creation science had the better data, there would be a ground swell of non- christain scientists (not born into Christianity, and not biased by a pre-belief in creation science or Christianity at all) who would convert to Christianity based solely (or mostly) on the sound data collected by creation scientists(flood geology etc.)...''": That assumes that human beings are sufficiently objective to do this. And yet I know of many scientists who ''have'' been convinced of creation ''because of the evidence''. That is, they became Christians for other reasons, but continued, like the scientists you know, to believe in evolution. They changed from evolution-believing Christians to creation-believing Christians ''because of the evidence''. Yes, in most cases they were Christians first, but given that you ''can't'' believe in creation without believing in God, that's not surprising. That is, going from believing in evolution to believing in creation, or believing in no God to believing in God, is a ''big'' change. It's a doubly-large change to do both at once, to it's not surprising that one happens before the other, and they are not going to believe in creation without believing in God, so believing in God comes first. But that doesn't take away from the fact that they then start to believe in creation ''because of the evidence''.
: "''(you do howerever, see literal bible followers updating there views at universities everyday in large numbers- at least where I am)''": When they are indoctrinated into just one view, and they have that much peer pressure, what else would you expect?
: "''a) scientists (at large) never see the creation science data, but if they did would agree''": See above. That assumes that their objectiveness outweighs their worldview. If creation is true, that means that they are answerable to their Creator, and they don't ''want'' to believe this. And it is true that most never see the creation science data.
: "''I doubt A,B and C''": What about D: They never see the creation science data and even if they did would not be convinced until they changed their worldview?
: "''by supernatural I mean unfalseifiable, undetectable.''": What about detecting the results of? For example, concluding that design exists in living things so there must be a designer? You are not directly detecting the supernatural, but you are detecting evidence of His existence.
: "''You can propose anything you want, just be prepared to provide evidence.''": There is plenty of evidence of God's existence. Are you unaware of it?
: "''In senerio 2 we try not to assume anything...''": And yet you do, as I mentioned. You assume that your brains are capable of correctly understanding the data, and that your senses are accurately observing that data, for starters.
: "''...in popular subjects frauds are found quickly''": Not necessarily. Piltdown Man took about 40 years to be discovered as fraud. Haeckel's faked embryo drawings, although long known to be fraudulent, are still found in some textbooks.
: "''If you wish to assert your senerio 3 is correct, that god is the reason for things, you first must give evidence for god.''": No I don't. As explained above, ''all'' views start with ''some'' assumptions. It is unreasonable to ask of me something that you don't ask of yourself. If you wish to assert that scenario 2 is correct, that God is not involved, you first must give ''evidence'' that all things ''can'' be explained without God. Or accept that basic assumptions are involved in any scenario.
: "''I’m just saying creation science claims to know what it will show ahead of time-the bible is correct ''": Naturalism claims to know what it will show ahead of time—that naturalism is correct. It works both ways.
: "''THE BIBLE IS NEVER WRONG''": EVOLUTION IS NEVER WRONG. That works both ways as well.
: "''If evidence disagrees directly .it is wrong we don’t need to prove it.-but will try to, until then we still assume it is wrong (it disagrees with the bible after all)''": Evolutionists think the same way. And for the biblical view, that's actually worked pretty well in the past. Archaeologists used to claim that the Hittites recorded in the Bible never existed. But the Bible was right and the archaeologists were wrong. That example can be multiplied many times over. If something appears to disagree with the Bible, it's probably not the Bible that's wrong, based on past experience.
: "''Good science doesn’t assume an out come as true, or try to fit evidence to a view point.''": Agreed. But ''scientists'' do. Why is it that you seem to consider ''secular'' scientists as synonymous with "good science", but not creationary scientists? Please either talk about ''science'', or ''scientists''. Don't conflate the two.
: "'' there is no reason to think you can’t trust your senses, that you can trust your senses is an assumption''": There is reason, actually. If our senses are the result of a giant cosmic accident (the Big Bang) followed by myriad more accidents (including all the evolutionary mutations), then we have good reason for thinking that they can't tell us anything useful. Observations are that things that are ''designed'' well work well, and things that are ''poorly designed'', or ''not designed'', '''don't''' work well. So if our senses were not designed, then we should ''expect'' that they give us poor information.
: "''Our sense seem to work to tell us enough on how to stay alive (ex.not to touch hot things). We can live and survive and enjoy by our senses.''": So, the naturalistic view says that we are not designed; the creationary view says that we are; our observations are that designed things work better than undesigned things, so isn't this a test of sorts of which view is correct? You seem to be arguing that the fact that they work means that the assumption that they work is correct, and that would be true. But you also seem to be arguing that the fact that they appear to work justifies the view that they work ''despite not being designed''. This, however, is a case of rationalising your favoured viewpoint ''despite'' the evidence, because if anything the fact that they appear to work supports the idea that they were designed!
: "''How our sense will react to things becomes predictable. This in it self is semi-testing of our sense...''": Yes, it is a sort of test. So which explanation does that support? That they were designed or that they were not designed?
: "''(that is why i choose senerio 2) And It is tested to a small degree ''": But that test is of a ''prediction'' made by scenario 3, not scenario 2!
: "''...my point isn't is creation science correct or not. It is a different world view that is not scientific''": It's just as scientific as the naturalistic view.
: "''...it fits data to a preconcieved picture...''": Just as does naturalism.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:48, 23 October 2008 (EDT)