Skip to comments.Evolutionary Explanations Assume Evolution Explains
Posted on 12/06/2009 7:20:24 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
“I never found God out of fear.”
I have no idea what that means. I like cryptic answers, but that seems meaningless to me. What does the concept “God’ have to do with anything I’ve written to you? Reality is reality, and every choice has consequences. If you base your choices on mistaken views of reality the consequences will be bad, which is all I wrote meant.
An odd mix of mental abilities you have. Simultaneosly able to discern unspoken assumptions, and blind to implications.
Yeah, but it’s a serious question. I’m a little busy and can’t join in the crevo fights much anymore (I miss them) but I want to know if I’m being talked about.
Yes it's a serious question. But, I also see the humor in it.
Ohhh, I get it. A cheap shot.
S’okay...ammo’s more expensive than it used to be.
I am sorry. I still need to reply to you. Creationism is not on the top of my list.
>>I am sorry. I still need to reply to you. Creationism is not on the top of my list.<<
Not really — I got tired of this. One of these days I am just going to get all the colors of the horses and benches on these merry-go-round threads and then tokenize them.
1) E=Evolution, C=Creation
2) C=Comment, R=Response
4) # indicating with standard comment/response or sarastic comment
Std means Standard and is there for clarity:
The threads would be:
Std EC 1
Std CCR 1
Std ECR to CC1
Std CCR 2 (+CCS1)
Std EC 2 (+ECS1)
etc. etc. etc.
We really don’t get into anything new — I just pop in to let the outside world know many of us do know science and to see if any of the usual suspects have seen the light yet.
This is the ‘got-ya heads I win tails you lose’ land. Will explain later but it is the method of ‘winning’ public debates. More later.
Current gravity is testable, past evolution is not. You can propose historical theories, but cant show them. (Yes, to a much lesser extent this applies to most theories that require measurement.) Now what is a scientific fact? That is not proved?
My analogy to Creationists is about Dish’s theory that God created light in space to make the universe look old, when it is young. So if he could do this, he could create a universe that looks evolved but is created young. Maybe 100 years ago. As I explain, this is not science. Creationists hate this.
I still need to post about the creationist got-ya games.
>>Current gravity is testable, past evolution is not. You can propose historical theories, but cant show them. (Yes, to a much lesser extent this applies to most theories that require measurement.) Now what is a scientific fact? That is not proved?<<
Please don’t make me go through this again. You have to know what a scientific theory is and why there is no such thing as a “scientific fact” before we can proceed. Else we are speaking different languages.
>>I still need to post about the creationist got-ya games.<<
No need, I am familiar with them.
But unfortunately I read atheist evolutionists like Dawkins say evolution is a scientific fact. Others too. This just 1) sets off the creationists worst suspicions, 2) Gives them fuel to promote their political movement.
Then Dawkins writes things like “evolution proves there is no God”. Obviously this guys religion is atheism . So these creationists respond with every trick in the book, misquoting being the most frequent.
>> But unfortunately I read atheist evolutionists like Dawkins say evolution is a scientific fact. Others too. This just 1) sets off the creationists worst suspicions, 2) Gives them fuel to promote their political movement.<<
One is not the same as the other. Sadly, scientists get sloppy. The term “scientific fact” is shorthand for “the science is so overwhelming that there is little point in pursuing alternatives.” That is NOT what most people think of as “scientific fact.” And, the same loose colloquialism has hung me out to dry on things like “the theory of multiverses” (there is no such Scientific Theory).
>>Then Dawkins writes things like evolution proves there is no God. Obviously this guys religion is atheism . So these creationists respond with every trick in the book, misquoting being the most frequent.<<
Dawkins is flat out wrong and has made it difficult as you note. The fact is, science is SILENT on God, since theology is a different domain of though. In that statement, Dawkins walks into that alternate realm, where he is overmatched.
But, the effect of Gravity is not analogous to TToE. The TToG is and it is much less understood or settled than TToG.
Rather than repeat their example here, I remember a Chris Mathews got-ya he uses frequently: “Do you think gays were born that way?”. If you answer no, then 1) you are ill informed (your opinion is invalid) and 2) He demands you prove how you know that. If you answer yes then since they were born with a sexual desire, basic human rights demand we allow them to act it out. For very few things liberals use this assumption.
But this is what creationists call scientific debate. Heads I win, tails you lose.
I read that years ago in a book countering creationism. I also took a course in college called “The philosophy of science” that taught about scientific paradigms.
Yes, evolution is unlikely to be replaced with anything better. And contrary to atheists and creationist it is not a fact (provable.)
Fair enough — thanks for the perspective.
Time to call it a night — buenos noches.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.