Is misapplication of a science evidence against it?

[tabibito]

Perhaps the eyewitness you mention wasn't trying to write a science book? Hmmm... Think about that.

K54

Not to mention that all of pre-history is wrapped up in something less than 30 pages. Even on the Biblical chronology, that's barely enough for a preamble to a potted history.

[jordanriver]

Not to mention that all of pre-history is wrapped up in something less than 30 pages. Even on the Biblical chronology, that's barely enough for a preamble to a potted history.

why would a book explaining how to keep from going to hell give a crap about dinosaurs or plate tectonics.

.....and Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by me...
....and oh by the way, did you know if we take a walk a little north of here we can almost be standing on 3 different plates at the same time, the Eurasian plate, the Arabian plate, and the African plate...
...and Simon Peter replied, "cool"

...and James and John said, "hey lets go there, lets take some loaves and fishes and make it a holiday"



................really???

[tabibito]

why would a book explaining how to keep from going to hell give a crap about dinosaurs or plate tectonics.

.....and Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by me...
....and oh by the way, did you know if we take a walk a little north of here we can almost be standing on 3 different plates at the same time, the Eurasian plate, the Arabian plate, and the African plate...
...and Simon Peter replied, "cool"

...and James and John said, "hey lets go there, lets take some loaves and fishes and make it a holiday"



................really???

Just so.

[rwatts]

Sorry, but C123 in this thread (and one other) has presented no evidence, nor any argument save emotion and insults. He accused me of being a troll with no evidence. He accused rwatts of breaking the irony meter with no evidence that rwatts did.

JR is all over with her/his statements. 1) No boundary between micro/macro evolutions. 2) evolution only within the undefinable notion of "kinds", 3) Both understanding and not understanding the notion of scientific proof, 4) Poking fun at "Darwinists"... Oh, and seemingly proud his/her confusion.

And both JR and Cereb have demonstrated agreement with Jorge on his thesis which is trivially false. Neither of them understand the SIMPLE fact that Jorge's committing logical fallacies.

What else should I conclude? Outside these few threads I don't know either of em from a can of beans.

But if you say they're in a different category than Jorge, I'll certainly take that under advisement.

K54

C123's response to my "Bible believer", "Godly" comment puzzled me a lot. Generally when I use that argument, the creationists go silent. Then I remembered something I'd often wondered about TWeb in comparison to another forum I post on. What I am about to say might seem utterly crazy.

There seem to be two types of religious fundamentalist, when it comes to these arguments about science and creation "science":-

1) Those who think their absolute truth can be defended by the same kind of reasoning that scholars use, and

2) Those who think their absolute truth needs no defending, because it is absolute truth. As a result its up to all others to justify why they think differently.

I think that the religious fundamentalists on TWeb fall into category 1 - even Jorge. The religious fundamentalists on another forum I frequently post at fall into category 2.

The category 2) folk attempt to be presuppositional apologists who only ask questions, and expect answers, but ignore questions put back to them. Furthermore, they tend to rant ceaselessly and let you know that their rants are some kind of approved message from God that needs no questioning.

Those in category 1) may rant a lot, but they think they are actually defending by logic and reason, the faith. Those in category 2) think that defence is not needed, given that they automatically own the absolute truth.

So, in a way, I can kind of understand C123's annoyance at what I posted. It's a better argument to be used against the presuppositional apologists. When you catch a presuppositional apologist lying, or making a terrible mistake, and can demonstrate it, it undermines their ability to get away with the nonsense that they peddle. It's a lot harder for such people to insist - "Trust me because I speak for God" - when they are staring one of their own mistakes or lies in the face.

[klaus54]

why would a book explaining how to keep from going to hell give a crap about dinosaurs or plate tectonics.

.....and Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man cometh to the Father but by me...
....and oh by the way, did you know if we take a walk a little north of here we can almost be standing on 3 different plates at the same time, the Eurasian plate, the Arabian plate, and the African plate...
...and Simon Peter replied, "cool"

...and James and John said, "hey lets go there, lets take some loaves and fishes and make it a holiday"



................really???

Confusing.

Are you being facetious or just going over my head again?

Just to clarify for a dunce like me, are you saying that the Genesis stories are not scientifically accurate?

I thought you said they were history? History necessarily exists in a physical universe. Earth's and the Cosmo's histories are decoded by scientific method.

So are you a YEC/anti-evolutionist or an OEC or a TE or what?

Confused...

K54

P.S. " ................really???" WHAT?

[tabibito]

The physical evidence available scotches the age of the Earth as derived from the Bible, so at least part of the record is incorrect. Just how much might be a matter of conjecture, but YEC doesn't even rely on a rational reconciliation of the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts.

[klaus54]

The physical evidence available scotches the age of the Earth as derived from the Bible, so at least part of the record is incorrect. Just how much might be a matter of conjecture, but YEC doesn't even rely on a rational reconciliation of the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 accounts.

You are correct, Sir.

Now I'm still flummoxed by JR's reply. Is she/he a YEC and being a wiseguy/gal or is he/she an OEC or TE and making a point of an origins apologetic?

He/she apparently dismisses evolution (at least "Darwinism") which is intertwined with geological history. E.g., she apparently supports Jorge's ridiculous abusus usum anti-evolution argument. At least she mocks me for not understanding it.

So I dunno. I'm leaning towards the "she/he's smarter than me" option.

K54

[tabibito]

If you're referring to post#47, I think JR is saying that comments about the physical sciences in the Bible would essentially be

Which would seem to be borne out by comments here.

[fm93]

You honestly think Cerebrum is a fundy?

Uh...yes. It seems to be self-evident. Is there any reason to think otherwise?

[KingsGambit]

A few quick hits:

"Fundamentalist" should not be used as an insult. It very literally refers to Christians who want to focus on the fundamentals of the faith. There are many, many people in fundamentalist churches who love the Lord with their heart, their mind (yes, their mind), and their soul. And yes, I think that means that "fundy atheist" should not be used as an insult either.

Cerebrum is not anywhere close to Jorge. He is a reasonable user who engages with evidence, asks and answers questions, and does not resort to slanderous accusations of drunkenness if cornered. Jorge behaves boorishly, Cerebrum does not. So let's dispense with that ridiculousness right now.

[Cerebrum123]

Sorry, but C123 in this thread (and one other) has presented no evidence, nor any argument save emotion and insults. He accused me of being a troll with no evidence. He accused rwatts of breaking the irony meter with no evidence that rwatts did.

snip

I've given plenty of evidence, so you saying I didn't was a lie. To say that I only engaged in insults is a lie too. You simply dismissed my post explaining all of what I said as "irrelevant drivel". I've also cited primary sources like Charles Darwin, I've cited Leonard Darwin, and how he claims he was doing his father's work in the eugenics program. Here is a more explicit citation.

Source: Leonard Darwin

But even earlier than that there was the letter Leonard Darwin wrote to his fellow eugenicist, Karl Pearson,

Jan 14 1914 Dear Pearson- I was glad to get your letter, though I am sorry to find that is confirms the impression which I had that you would rather not be asked to dinner. I shall, however, continue to live in hopes that someday we may cooperate in the field of Eugenics, though I agree it is useless to attempt to do so with divergent aims. Thank you for the ticket for the lectures, which I should much like to attend. But I have a committee every afternoon nearly, leaving me weary with the difficult task of dealing with human beings. I should chuck most of it but for a sense of duty and a belief that my Father would have liked me to do what little in me lies as regards Eugenics. Yours sincerely Leonard Darwin

© Copyright Original Source

So you are insinuating that if a person does believe the Bible then they can never claim an action of theirs to be "Godly" or "inspired by God", because if they really did believe the Bible, then they would know that they are sinners?

Like I said, those who would be the closest to even being considered "Godly" would know better than try and make themselves into that kind of authority. Even Paul would delineate that which he was certain was a message from God, from his own thoughts on the matter.

How does that logic follow in practice C123? I meet lots of folk in these kinds of forums who claim the most intimate of relationships with God, and to be guided by the Holy Spirit on the one hand, but have no qualms about misrepresenting the ideas of others on the other hand. And they also claim to be "born again" and "Bible believers".

Atheists, Hindus, Muslims, agnositcs, Buddhists - could not make those claims, could they C123. Only folk who claim to believe the Bible could make them.

Except for atheists and agnostics I have met others who claim to believe the Bible in those other categories. Again, the people you are talking about sound far more like the Pharisees* of Jesus' day.

So, likewise are you happy to be honest about the deaths of millions of innocent people, caused by the use of Newton's theories? The moment Newton developed his theory, it entailed the deaths of those millions of people. Can you understand why?

No, those deaths were not "entailed" by Newton's theories. Human nature applied to them is what caused that. There is nothing inherent in Newton's theories that says we should be killing the less "fit" because otherwise we will degenerate. Yes, that is what Darwin said, yes he did deny it. Same as Marc Antony denied wanting to upset people.

So who here is making Darwin out to be the "Saint of Science"?

Everyone here defending him is ignoring what he said, and what is clear he wanted done. They are defending him in spite of this being shown to their faces, because they have a little bit of plausible deniability to hide behind.

We are defending his development of a great scientific theory, a theory which has a lot of experimental support in its favour.

No you are not. You are defending a bad philosophy, along with a cowardly, two-faced politician who wanted people to take his "science" seriously. Darwin mostly supported his theory not with facts or evidence, but by arguing against straw men, and ignoring evidence. Seems that much of the same has been going on the same ever since. The "evidence" that is used to support it today seems to be more flimsy every day to me. I'll admit right now that I could be wrong, but that's what I see when I read articles, or posts in support of Evolution(yeah, and stop blaming Jorge for making up the definition he uses, one of your own, Gerald Kerkut).

Do you think you have anything to match?

Never claimed I did.

We are also defending a person who was very much a man of his times, who lived in a culture that generally thought in the ways he thought.

That's certainly not what I'm seeing. What posts are you even reading? rogue06 has been denying Charles Darwin's racism, sexism, and eugenics support, all the while trying to make him into some kind of noble person.

The writers of those creeds lived in prescientific cultures. Of course they would write something like it. So what theistic evolutionist does not believe in creation?

The "prescientific" thing is simply your way of trying to paint them as ignorant. They were not, and they knew what was being taught, and were trying to fight against heresies that were leading people to hell. If TE doesn't believe in creation(note, not creationism), then they are in the realm of heresy, and need to be fought on those grounds alone.

And if YECs find it (evolution) not to be a salvation issue, then why do so many YECs on forums like these find it so darn hard to admit that theistic evolutionists are in fact true Christians?

I've never had a problem with it, neither did Dee Dee Warren, or JP Holding. You think maybe your samples are a bit biased?

I see it time and time again, a theistic evolutionist ask a YEC if he/she (the evolutionist) is a Christian and it's generally met with silence.

See above.

Oh really. How often do you see the theory of evolution being blamed for so much of societies ills? For example, how much of the propaganda from sites like AiG do you actually read?

I've read quite a bit of it actually. And every single one of them has a basis in what Charles Darwin and his colleagues, whom he stated emphatic agreement with. Ernst Haeckel being the most notorious. Stephen Jay Gould even has him as a leading influence for Nazism. Hmm, who was Ernst Haeckel influenced, and encouraged by?

Source: Stephen Jay Gould

[His] evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a “just” state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his grave words about objective science—all contributed to the rise of Nazism

Stephen Jay Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny

© Copyright Original Source

This will, I hope, be my last post in this section for a while. I'm sick of this.

[Method]

No, those deaths were not "entailed" by Newton's theories. Human nature applied to them is what caused that. There is nothing inherent in Newton's theories that says we should be killing the less "fit" because otherwise we will degenerate. Yes, that is what Darwin said, yes he did deny it.

Where did Darwin say this? Can you explain how the theory demands that we should kill those we deem less fit?

Darwin mostly supported his theory not with facts or evidence, but by arguing against straw men, and ignoring evidence.

Yet another empty assertion that you will not back up?

[fm93]

A few quick hits:

"Fundamentalist" should not be used as an insult. It very literally refers to Christians who want to focus on the fundamentals of the faith. There are many, many people in fundamentalist churches who love the Lord with their heart, their mind (yes, their mind), and their soul. And yes, I think that means that "fundy atheist" should not be used as an insult either.

Cerebrum is not anywhere close to Jorge. He is a reasonable user who engages with evidence, asks and answers questions, and does not resort to slanderous accusations of drunkenness if cornered. Jorge behaves boorishly, Cerebrum does not. So let's dispense with that ridiculousness right now.

What you're describing is better characterized as "traditionalist." When I think of fundamentalism, I think of unwaveringly holding to positions like young-earth creationism, strict views of inerrancy, etc--in other words, holding to traditional positions more because they're traditional and viewed as fundamental than any other reason. As it stands, he does hold to those positions unwaveringly; ergo, he's a fundamentalist, albeit not on the level of Jorge. His main argument here--that teaching evolution is dangerous because Darwin allegedly tried to justify it for terrible purposes--is weak and smacks of fundamentalist tendencies. Really, does that argument seem like an objective analysis, or rather some desperate Hail Mary obtained from a creationist website in an effort to preserve creationism?

For starters, even if Darwin believed that the theory justified eugenics, it's fallacious to characterize that as "according to the guy who invented the theory." Alfred Russel Wallace conceived of the theory independently of Darwin and would probably be the name most commonly attached to it had he more aggressively promoted his findings--and he explicitly condemned eugenics.

Second of all, there's the obvious gaping logical hole. The atomic bomb was invented for the purpose/intention of killing massive numbers of people, yet I don't see any creationists saying that the science that allowed the atomic bomb to be built shouldn't be taught. In fact, it'd be really difficult to learn and discover anything from other areas of science without that knowledge.

[KingsGambit]

What you're describing is better characterized as "traditionalist." When I think of fundamentalism, I think of unwaveringly holding to positions like young-earth creationism, strict views of inerrancy, etc--in other words, holding to traditional positions more because they're traditional and viewed as fundamental than any other reason. As it stands, he does hold to those positions unwaveringly; ergo, he's a fundamentalist, albeit not on the level of Jorge. His main argument here--that teaching evolution is dangerous because Darwin allegedly tried to justify it for terrible purposes--is weak and smacks of fundamentalist tendencies. Really, does that argument seem like an objective analysis, or rather some desperate Hail Mary obtained from a creationist website in an effort to preserve creationism?

For starters, even if Darwin believed that the theory justified eugenics, it's fallacious to characterize that as "according to the guy who invented the theory." Alfred Russel Wallace conceived of the theory independently of Darwin and would probably be the name most commonly attached to it had he more aggressively promoted his findings--and he explicitly condemned eugenics.

Second of all, there's the obvious gaping logical hole. The atomic bomb was invented for the purpose/intention of killing massive numbers of people, yet I don't see any creationists saying that the science that allowed the atomic bomb to be built shouldn't be taught. In fact, it'd be really difficult to learn and discover anything from other areas of science without that knowledge.

I do agree with you that the line of thinking advanced involving discrediting Darwin himself or other notable evolutionists is fallacious, as is the eugenics line of thinking. At most, it could be used to demonstrate that teaching evolution is dangerous, which is not the same as refuting it of course. And as I believe all truth is God's truth, I think this would only be a fruitful avenue to pursue if evolution were already demonstrated to be false or dubious on other grounds.

As for the thing about the word "fundamentalist", I know you're right regarding how the words are normally used. I'm just on my own (perhaps quixotic) crusade to try to stop Christians from beating each other up mercilessly. Creating barriers is not helpful for Christians who are considering leaving what is generally termed "fundamentalism" and keeping lines of communications open, I think, makes it more likely that they find other places to land within the spectrum of Christendom.

[phank]

In science the only way to discredit something is to demonstrate that it does not match up to the facts and evidence. While with a religion you can discredit it by showing that its founder is a fraud and some sort of reprobate, with science it is only what the evidence reveals that counts.

The underlying distinction being that science is based on the real, and religion is based on the imaginary. So the only valid way to do science is to investigate reality, while the only way to do religion is to either accept or reject the figments of someone's imagination. Reality doesn't usually care what people think of it, while what people think of it is all religion consists of.

And so through religious eyes, it's not necessary even to know what the theory of evolution says, much less what it's based on. All that's necessary is to SAY that it's a source of evil and have people believe you. SAYING things are true is the ONLY way religious truths arise and propagate. BEING true really doesn't signify.