Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Quite some similarities with the Bible now
I don't see the point in extrapolating a similarity to arrive at same?And when we test it, it fails as to be expected. When we now try to test the bible, what can be done, as there are some processes listed like the seven days in Genesis. And in short: it fails spectacular.
It fails spectacularly if your position happens to be the Creationist/literalist.
One of the problems with "testing the Bible" is how you arrive at the correct view of what it says, in order that you might test what it has to say. You have an example right there: I don't suppose for a moment that the Bible ought be read literally as Creationists read it. So am hardly surprised when the case the Creationists make struggles.
-
I was referring to something rather narrower than "The Bible". It had to do with the bibles view of the state of man .. and it fitting far better than the mish/mash explanation of psychology/sociology/anthropology/etc.
Like aesthetics, the sense of "fit" is, of course, personally arrived at.You also have historic information like names of kings or areas that are accurate but this is also to be expected as it was written far after those people died or events happened. While others cannot be verified or no evidence so far has been found.
To be honest, I'm not that interested in biblical historicity discussions. I've seen them over the years and they go round the same old houses. A bit like the Creationist/Evolutionist debate.And there is a mix up with Hypothesis and Theory. If we ignore for a moment that we already verified that, where the Bible describes testable ideas, it fails.
That ball was returned over the net above
So would it be a Theory or a Hypothesis? Like a Hypothesis would be a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon or prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. It doesn't need to be well-substantiated and well-tested in difference to a Theory. And as we tested the Bible already, we know it failed so it is not even a Hypothesis anymore.
Like the Karl May books, it can be seen as fiction with some historical accuracy.
As indicated above (and given the context of discussion with Safehands) we're not talking the realm of scientific measurement here.
Take the biblical view of man for a moment. Chief among man's sinful tendencies is pride. If pride is the king of sin then selfishness, lust, gluttony and the rest are knights around the kings table. Servants and derivatives of the king.
Is there a scientific pride-o-meter that can measure it's activity? Don't think so. Can a person detect pride-driven activity in another, unto the most subtle of detections. They sure can.
The "fit" being referred to above involves all the ability of a person to discern, detect, assess, consider, reflect. It's beyond and above science. Now there may be some who would suppose such an approach less than science, since science is seen as the only way. But there is no compelling need to subscribe to that view.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
... and if s/he kills every patient that s/he treats, it doesn't take a genius to work out that there is something wrong with their scientific approach!!!
Sure. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying the ordinary man can pit himself against the neurosurgeon using cop onI'm saying that even the most complex ideas can be boiled down to understandable principles and evidence that anybody can understand.
Utterly untrue. Anyone whose gone through the rigors of an education knows that you start with the simple things and understand that. Then you use that knowledge to add more, and more. Until, after a number of years education and a similar build up in experience and responsibility, you're capable of building a bridge that withstands a storm. You can't boil down that ability into something the man on the street can comprehend the detail of. For we are talking of the detail here.
You can simplify big concepts down of course, but the man on the street then has to rely on the authority assuring him that this boiling down is an accurate simplification of that which is otherwise unaccessible to him. He cannot determine the veracity of the simplification for himself
Which places him in a position of relying on the authority. Which is quite a different thing to using his cop on to attain to the level of the expert.Whoever these 'Creationists' were, they certainly weren't Creation Scientists ... because it is my experience, that they win every contest with evolutionists ... to the point where Evolutionists tend to now avoid debating with them at all.:)
There are good reasons not to debate creationist "scientists". The most plausible being the avoidance of supplying air to that fire. It was watching the likes of the Gish Gallop in action that first raised my suspicion that Creationism might well have problems.The ordinary man may not be able to do this ... but if every bridge you build ... and claim to be indestructible, falls down when the first storm hits it ... the ordinary man will be able to use common sense to conclude that there is a fundamental flaw in your scientific approach. He may not know what exactly is wrong ... but he most definitely will know that your engineering approach is invalid.
Cart before the horse. The ordinary man isn't in a position to say whether or not the ToE bridge has fallen down. He hasn't the expertise to establish that for himself, he can only rely on what he thinks is an authority, on creation scientists, for example.
Remember your point: the ordinary man can examine the design suitability of the proposed bridge for himself. Let's not divert from that issue.Equally, if you claim that you have found some novel idea that doubles the structural strength of your bridge design ... the ordinary man will be convinced that you are on to something if your new slimline bridges are built and stand the test of storm and time !!!
... and the same is true with evolution ... where the claim is that ponkind evolved into mankind via a series of tiny changes ... and none of the supposed multiple 'intermediates' that should be observable, are observable in either the current biosphere or in the fossil record.
Which leaves us with a problem our ordinary man must resolve thus. There is a giant conspiracy, whereby thousands of well-versed scientists in any number of branches (geology. cosmology, biology, palenthology... for these all stand counter Creationism), who are aware of fatal flaws in established theories - for which they have no answer, chose to close their eyes in order that their unbelieving worldview can be sustained.
It isn't an ordinary man who threads this path, it is an extra-ordinary manI had a brief look at this forum ... and the topics don't look much different from the topics here and on the A & A.
... so I'll pass on involving myself over there ... for the time being.
It's not so much the topics (which you certainly won't find here). It's the quality of the opposition. You'd be up against scientist / the very well versed in the details types. Gross simplifications would quickly be challenged and you'd find yourself having to explain in somewhat greater detail how it is you both challenge ToE and how you make your own hypothesis stack up. It wouldn't be pretty (I know, I stuck my own toe in the water for a brief period).. and do you not think that the 'creme de la creme' of scientists have posted against me both here and over on the equivalent megathreads on the A & A over the past 12 years ???
Perhaps you could do me a favour and link to something where someone recognised in a relevant field went up against you? Honestly, I'd be interested to see how things developed.0 -
That isn't what I'm saying ... clearly, the average person isn't a qualified neurosurgeon ... and is in no position to question their judgement ... until the fruits of that judgement becomes apparent ... in the success or otherwise of their treatments. Equally, if a neurosurgeon starts to spout arrant nonesense ... then I think that most people would start to seriously question them ... despite the obvious disparity of expertise and training between patient and doctor ... because there is a matter of life and death involved.antiskeptic wrote: »Sure. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying the ordinary man can pit himself against the neurosurgeon using cop on.
Ditto with evolution ... the average person may not follow the details of the theory ... but they can understand, for example, that life doesen't spontaneously arise ... and the extreme lack of fossil or living intermediaries between every Kind of organism is fatal to the theory that they evolved by a series of minutely changed intermediaries.
You can indeed boil things down to simple principles ... and in the case cited of building bridges, it is a fact that bridges are actually physically built by people of average education ... the labourers, the steel erectors, the concrete shutterers, crane operators, etc.antiskeptic wrote: »Utterly untrue. Anyone whose gone through the rigors of an education knows that you start with the simple things and understand that. Then you use that knowledge to add more, and more. Until, after a number of years education and a similar build up in experience and responsibility, you're capable of building a bridge that withstands a storm. You can't boil down that ability into something the man on the street can comprehend the detail of. For we are talking of the detail here.
... and whatever structure you may draft on your drawing board, it is actually translated into a finished structure, on the ground, by non-engineers ... who none-the-less can (and in many cases need to) understand the basic principles of what you are trying to achieve with your particular design.
... and many will spot flaws in your design very quickly, if the structure isn't turning out as it should, during the construction process.
... so scorn not the apparent 'simplicity' of the ordinary person !!:eek:
Correct, we all bow to authority and expertise, if for no other reason than the fact that our lives are short ... and we can't be experts in the detail of everything.antiskeptic wrote: »You can simplify big concepts down of course, but the man on the street then has to rely on the authority assuring him that this boiling down is an accurate simplification of that which is otherwise unaccessible to him. He cannot determine the veracity of the simplification for himself
Which places him in a position of relying on the authority. Which is quite a different thing to using his cop on to attain to the level of the expert.
... but if an authority tells us one thing ... and we see something very different, in reality ... then a process of questioning that authority will commence ... and if questions arise quicker than answers ... then the authority will lose credibility in relation to what they are pronouncing upon.
Of course, as various examples have shown, this process can be glacially slow, when life and death issues aren't involved and/or where the authority has something approaching a monopoly on pronouncements on the subject involved and/or has excellent credibility on other issues.
This is the case with conventional science ... and was also the case with the Medieval Church !!!
... the fire of truth!!!:)antiskeptic wrote: »There are good reasons not to debate creationist "scientists". The most plausible being the avoidance of supplying air to that fire.
The infamous 'Gish Gallop' ... was Dr Duane T Gish 'running rings around' Evolutionists and doing a lap of honour at the end of debates with them!!!antiskeptic wrote: »It was watching the likes of the Gish Gallop in action that first raised my suspicion that Creationism might well have problems.
The late Dr Gish was eminently qualified to do this as he had a B.S. in Chemistry, from UCLA and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry,from the University of California, Berkeley.:)
Not correct, an ordinary person can evaluate the evidence for themselves ... they do so every day on juries all over the World ... with a defendents freedom (and in some cases, their very lives) dependent on a jury (of ordinary people) correctly evaluating the evidence (including the very complex technical evidence of expert witnesses). Interestingly, they are 'assisted' in the process by being presented with competing evidence from both sides (the prosecution and defense) which takes the form of a structured questioning that is very similar to debating forums like this ... with the role of the judge parallelling that of the mods.antiskeptic wrote: »Cart before the horse. The ordinary man isn't in a position to say whether or not the ToE bridge has fallen down. He hasn't the expertise to establish that for himself, he can only rely on what he thinks is an authority, on creation scientists, for example.
Its a bit stark allright ... but I don't think it is as deliberate as you say ... I think that unless and until an alternative theory on how diverse life came to be (that doesn't involve intelligent action) is discovered, they think that science is stuck with Evolution as the best current explanation. Although it is a poor theory, it is indeed the best explantion currently available using purely materialistic processes for the diversity of life.antiskeptic wrote: »Which leaves us with a problem our ordinary man must resolve thus. There is a giant conspiracy, whereby thousands of well-versed scientists in any number of branches (geology. cosmology, biology, palenthology... for these all stand counter Creationism), who are aware of fatal flaws in established theories - for which they have no answer, chose to close their eyes in order that their unbelieving worldview can be sustained.
Their difficulties are also somewhat eased by the fact, that even though evolution doesen't explain the arrival of the fittest ... is is a reasonably powerful explantion for the survival of the fittest ... with many important real world phenomena supporting this aspect of evolution.
Some would say that all 'ordinary' men have 'extraordinary' dimensions.:)antiskeptic wrote: »It isn't an ordinary man who threads this path, it is an extra-ordinary man.
It all depends on who is nearest the truth of what actually happened ... someone of limited intelligence, who knows what actually happened, cannot be defeated by someone of extraordinary intelligence who is arguing that it happened some other way.antiskeptic wrote: »It's not so much the topics (which you certainly won't find here). It's the quality of the opposition. You'd be up against scientist / the very well versed in the details types. Gross simplifications would quickly be challenged and you'd find yourself having to explain in somewhat greater detail how it is you both challenge ToE and how you make your own hypothesis stack up. It wouldn't be pretty (I know, I stuck my own toe in the water for a brief period)
The evidence simply will stack up for the theory of what actually happened ... and will confound the theory of what didn't happen ... no matter how intelligent (or not) the proponents are.
Its often the little details that catches out a false hypothesis ... but in the case of pondkind to mankind evolution ... it's practically everything about it.:)
I jumped in feet first over twelve years ago ... and survived to tell the tale!!:Dantiskeptic wrote: »Gross simplifications would quickly be challenged and you'd find yourself having to explain in somewhat greater detail how it is you both challenge ToE and how you make your own hypothesis stack up. It wouldn't be pretty (I know, I stuck my own toe in the water for a brief period)0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
That isn't what I'm saying ... clearly, the average person isn't a qualified neurosurgeon ... and is in no position to question their judgement ... until the fruits of that judgement becomes apparent ... in the success or otherwise of their treatments. Equally, if a neurosurgeon starts to spout arrant nonesense ...
IF indeed...
The ordinary man isn't in a position to say whether the scientists are speaking arrant nonsense. You have to be a scientist to understand whether or not there are gaping holes in what is being proposed.
For example:the average person may not follow the details of the theory ... but they can understand, for example, that life doesen't spontaneously arise ... and the extreme lack of fossil or living intermediaries between every Kind of organism is fatal to the theory that they evolved by a series of minutely changed intermediaries.
The average person (who isn't being driven by a creation agenda) has no idea whether or not life can arise. Once they accept that existing-life can evolve in minute stages (ToE), it isn't a leap for them to suppose that the chemical compounds which make up the simplest of life would exist in a pre-cursor non-life state.
Whether or not such a step could feasibly be made or not isn't within the remit of an ordinary man.You can indeed boil things down to simple principles ... and in the case cited of building bridges, it is a fact that bridges are actually physically built by people of average education ... the labourers, the steel erectors, the concrete shutterers, crane operators, etc.
... and whatever structure you may draft on your drawing board, it is actually translated into a finished structure, on the ground, by non-engineers ... who none-the-less can (and in many cases need to) understand the basic principles of what you are trying to achieve with your particular design.
Are you being deliberately disingenuous in defending your patently ludicrous claim?
The fact a steel worker drills a hole where he's told to drill it in a piece of bridge steel increases not one jot his ability to comprehend whether or not the design of the structure is able to withstand once-in-100-year storms. He might spot a mistake in a detail, because he is used to working at detail level "Eeh up! T'Engineers positioned that 'ole waay too near the corner. You cannae get a spanner on nut t'tighten it!!
He can comment within the narrower scope his skills and experience allow him to operate in .. only.
You say that Homo Ordinarious can be made understand the deepest complexity such as to render his lack of education and experience irrelevant. Irrelevant enough to decide the body science is utterly wrong. You are on a hiding to nothing here.... and many will spot flaws in your design very quickly, if the structure isn't turning out as it should, during the construction process.
We're not talking about the bridge being built upside down. We're talking about the complexity which goes into it's design. No ordinary tradesman is going to know whether the material specified in the manufacture of the steel which goes to make up the members of the bridge are up to the task or not. Show him the calculations for same and he'll draw an utter blank. It doesn't matter whether he's built a thousand bridges or not.
You are engaging in an inverted form of snobbery here.but if an authority tells us one thing ... and we see something very different, in reality ... then a process of questioning that authority will commence ... and if questions arise quicker than answers ... then the authority will lose credibility in relation to what they are pronouncing upon.
Granted. We (my wife and I) don't vaccinate. But it's not because we have understanding of the complexity of medicine. Rather, we assess the need for the Irish schedule vs. what other European countries do, we suppose no need to vaccinate infants against sexually transmitted diseases, we utilise our Christian insight / practical experience regarding (corporate especially) mankind's corruption ... and decide not vaccinating the better gamble.
Your ordinary man has no basis to question the body science. At least, you haven't proposed anything of substance yet.The infamous 'Gish Gallop' ... was Dr Duane T Gish 'running rings around' Evolutionists and doing a lap of honour at the end of debates with them!!!
He employed the same techniques as you do. Obfuscate (the tradesman bolting a bridge together is somehow equipped to be a design engineer - ho, ho, ho), make grossly simplified statements, appeal to "common sense" ( a bit like you do with your "life can't arise from non life" and generally don't stick around on a point long enough to have to defend it.
Proper scientists (i.e. those who are qualified and operate soberly and considerately) wouldn't, of course, have a hope against that. I utterly agree with their refusing to "debate" the likes of such dishonesty.Not correct, an ordinary person can evaluate the evidence for themselves ... they do so every day on juries all over the World ... with a defendents freedom (and in some cases, their very lives) dependent on a jury (of ordinary people) correctly evaluating the evidence (including the very complex technical evidence of expert witnesses).
Unfortunately, we have no way of calibrating how well they do in this task. I've had the privilege of sitting in the high court watching such evidence being evaluated. By a judge in that case. It wasn't a case of the judge correctly interpreting the evidence. It was a case of which barrister could play the game the best.
Not for nothing the idea that justice isn't necessarily to be found in a court of law.Its a bit stark allright ... but I don't think it is as deliberate as you say ... I think that unless and until an alternative theory on how diverse life came to be (that doesn't involve intelligent action) is discovered, they think that science is stuck with Evolution as the best current explanation. Although it is a poor theory, it is indeed the best explantion currently available using purely materialistic processes for the diversity of life.
The point was that ordinary man is faced with choosing to accept that science is correct in it's assessment (whilst having good reason to suppose the scientific endeavor and worthwhile one to value the opinion of). Or choosing to believe in a conspiracy.
Little wonder than few, apart from religious fundamentalists, who've a particular, literalist reading of the Bible to grind, disbelieve the scientists. They have absolutely no good reason (form their perspective) to do so.Their difficulties are also somewhat eased by the fact, that even though evolution doesen't explain the arrival of the fittest ... is is a reasonably powerful explantion for the survival of the fittest ... with many important real world phenomena supporting this aspect of evolution.
Like I said above, ordinary man won't consider it a stretch to move some lifeless molecules into the simplest form of life. They won't be all that worried that science hasn't demonstrated it yet - given the alternative "movement's" modus operandi.It all depends on who is nearest the truth of what actually happened ... someone of limited intelligence, who knows what actually happened, cannot be defeated by someone of extraordinary intelligence who is arguing that it happened some other way.
Knowing is as irrelevant here as it is in a court of law - once confined to playing by the rules of the game. Your "theory" has to provide the means/observations/data/etc. It has to be peer reviewed. It has to be clearly superior to the alernative case.
You can cry all you like about conspiracy against creationists. But you won't win by the rules.I jumped in feet first over twelve years ago ... and survived to tell the tale!!:D
Survival is in the eye of the beholder. You might consider having survived some of the bonkers suggestions you've made to me in these last posts: a bricklayer understanding bridge design because he's clad a few in his time .. just because you persist in that view. All you need do to survive is not be embarrass-able
Like I say, post a link to a discussion you had here or anywhere with real, live published scientists and let's see how you did. Something which involves you presenting some real scientific meat and potatoes when it comes to the specific area under discussion.
I suspect you won't, because I suspect you didn't. If boards is all you have - which isn't really saying that much, given the quality of discussion out there, then you could, by all means, treat us to a thread on EvC. All you have to do is pick a topic, make a claim and let the games commence.0 -
You don't actually need to be a scientist to see that some scientific prognostications are baloney.antiskeptic wrote: »IF indeed...
The ordinary man isn't in a position to say whether the scientists are speaking arrant nonsense. You have to be a scientist to understand whether or not there are gaping holes in what is being proposed.
However, some scientists, being prideful Humans, would like to think that they have a monopoly on logic and wisdom ... in their chosen field ... ironically, this is quite like the arrogance of the Medieval Church about it's chosen field of religion.:)
The strategy of atheistic materialism writ large!!!antiskeptic wrote: »The average person (who isn't being driven by a creation agenda) has no idea whether or not life can arise. Once they accept that existing-life can evolve in minute stages (ToE), it isn't a leap for them to suppose that the chemical compounds which make up the simplest of life would exist in a pre-cursor non-life state.
... once the 'plebs' accept the irrational and totally unfounded theory (that pondkind can become mankind) ... then everything else will fall into place for an atheistic materialistic world (without God) to come about!!
... and so it is proving to be!!
It is no co-incidence that the 'Death of God theology' arose and its ascent marked the ascent of a belief in 'pondkind to mankind evolution'.
... Yes, it obviously takes an 'extraordinary man' to believe that the impossible (life generating itself spontaneously) can happen!!:)antiskeptic wrote: »Whether or not such a step could feasibly be made or not isn't within the remit of an ordinary man.
The ordinary man ... wouldn't believe that the Biological Law of Biogenesis could be violated ... unless proof of such violation is provided ... and so far this hasn't been provided ... despite many unfounded claims to the contrary.
This carry-on by conventional science is potentially deeply damaging to it's reputation ... and that is why it so aggressivley defends the indefensible ... to maintain the illusion that pondkind can spontaneously 'evolve' into mankind ... even when all logic and evidence proves that it cannot.
What they lack for in evidence, they try and make up for with arrogance and contempt, for the intelligence of their fellow man.
It "isn't within the remit of an ordinary man" indeed !!!:(
When it comes to bridge design ... resilience to storms is proven by experience ... and provided for by over-specification. Many bridge erectors have much more experience (and expertise) in erecting bridges ... than the (often young and inexperienced) engineers who design them.antiskeptic wrote: »The fact a steel worker drills a hole where he's told to drill it in a piece of bridge steel increases not one jot his ability to comprehend whether or not the design of the structure is able to withstand once-in-100-year storms. He might spot a mistake in a detail, because he is used to working at detail level "Eeh up! T'Engineers positioned that 'ole waay too near the corner. You cannae get a spanner on nut t'tighten it!!
I have also found that the levels of arrogance encountered with 'experts' are in inverse proportion to their actual expertise.:)
I'm not ... but you are engaging in an overt form of snobbery yourself ... by patronising the ordinary man.antiskeptic wrote: »You are engaging in an inverted form of snobbery here.
It has indeed been the fate of the 'ordinary man' down the centuries to be exploited and lied to by various elites ... he has been used as cannon fodder by generals, screwed by bankers, evicted by landlords and treated with contempt by various self-serving intellectuals ... from priests to scientists ... all of whom were only too happy to take his money ... by force of taxation, if necessary, to fund their lifestyles and pet projects ... often without benefit (and sometimes at exaraordinary cost) to the 'ordinary man', who has largely funded the whole shebang.
In going against mainstream science on this ... are you behaving as an ordinary (or an extraordinary) man ???antiskeptic wrote: »Granted. We (my wife and I) don't vaccinate. But it's not because we have understanding of the complexity of medicine. Rather, we assess the need for the Irish schedule vs. what other European countries do, we suppose no need to vaccinate infants against sexually transmitted diseases, we utilise our Christian insight / practical experience regarding (corporate especially) mankind's corruption ... and decide not vaccinating the better gamble.
... so why do you question the body of science on childhood vaccination ... and act on your questionining ... by not vaccinating your children?antiskeptic wrote: »Your ordinary man has no basis to question the body science. At least, you haven't proposed anything of substance yet.
... or do you believe that only 'extraordinary people' have the right to do this?
... and ordinary men have to take anything and everything, that scientists produce ... and inject it into their veins and the veins of their children, without question ... just because 'what doctor says is best' ???
If these 'proper scientists' had answers to the many very serious questions Dr Gish raised about 'pondkind to mankind evolution' they would be only too happy to answer them ... the fact that they ran away when faced with these questions, tells it's own story ... a story which 'ordinary people' can work out without any difficulty!!!:)antiskeptic wrote: »He employed the same techniques as you do. Obfuscate (the tradesman bolting a bridge together is somehow equipped to be a design engineer - ho, ho, ho), make grossly simplified statements, appeal to "common sense" ( a bit like you do with your "life can't arise from non life" and generally don't stick around on a point long enough to have to defend it.
Proper scientists (i.e. those who are qualified and operate soberly and considerately) wouldn't, of course, have a hope against that. I utterly agree with their refusing to "debate" the likes of such dishonesty.
Science is a fallible human endeavour that often makes claims that don't stand up ... and errors of enormous proportions ... the Unsinkable Titanic and the Thalidomide Scandal being an example of each.antiskeptic wrote: »The point was that ordinary man is faced with choosing to accept that science is correct in it's assessment (whilst having good reason to suppose the scientific endeavor and worthwhile one to value the opinion of). Or choosing to believe in a conspiracy.
https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjC64fG_7bYAhWjI8AKHaDUCf0QFggpMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyonthenet.com%2Fthe-titanic-why-did-people-believe-titanic-was-unsinkable%2F&usg=AOvVaw1iaXQZPpUHXIAmG07wqsuh
https://helix.northwestern.edu/article/thalidomide-tragedy-lessons-drug-safety-and-regulation
A healthy scepticism for all of the prognostications of 'the great and the good' ... is an excellent principle for the ordinary (and indeed, the extraordinary) man to adopt!!!:)antiskeptic wrote: »Little wonder than few, apart from religious fundamentalists, who've a particular, literalist reading of the Bible to grind, disbelieve the scientists. They have absolutely no good reason (form their perspective) to do so.
An ordinary man won't believe that dead matter will spontaneously spring into life ... it takes an 'extraordinary' man to believe in such unfounded speculation ... "that science hasn't demonstrated yet" ... to use your own words !!:eek:;)antiskeptic wrote: »Like I said above, ordinary man won't consider it a stretch to move some lifeless molecules into the simplest form of life. They won't be all that worried that science hasn't demonstrated it yet - given the alternative "movement's" modus operandi.0 -
If a few holes are shot into evolution - or if some think it's an error or even a conspiracy, it still leaves the issue of the creator and his creation.antiskeptic wrote: »IF indeed...
The ordinary man isn't in a position to say whether the scientists are speaking arrant nonsense. You have to be a scientist to understand whether or not there are gaping holes in what is being proposed.
For example:
The average person (who isn't being driven by a creation agenda) has no idea whether or not life can arise. Once they accept that existing-life can evolve in minute stages (ToE), it isn't a leap for them to suppose that the chemical compounds which make up the simplest of life would exist in a pre-cursor non-life state.
Whether or not such a step could feasibly be made or not isn't within the remit of an ordinary man.
Are you being deliberately disingenuous in defending your patently ludicrous claim?
The fact a steel worker drills a hole where he's told to drill it in a piece of bridge steel increases not one jot his ability to comprehend whether or not the design of the structure is able to withstand once-in-100-year storms. He might spot a mistake in a detail, because he is used to working at detail level "Eeh up! T'Engineers positioned that 'ole waay too near the corner. You cannae get a spanner on nut t'tighten it!!
He can comment within the narrower scope his skills and experience allow him to operate in .. only.
You say that Homo Ordinarious can be made understand the deepest complexity such as to render his lack of education and experience irrelevant. Irrelevant enough to decide the body science is utterly wrong. You are on a hiding to nothing here.
We're not talking about the bridge being built upside down. We're talking about the complexity which goes into it's design. No ordinary tradesman is going to know whether the material specified in the manufacture of the steel which goes to make up the members of the bridge are up to the task or not. Show him the calculations for same and he'll draw an utter blank. It doesn't matter whether he's built a thousand bridges or not.
You are engaging in an inverted form of snobbery here.
Granted. We (my wife and I) don't vaccinate. But it's not because we have understanding of the complexity of medicine. Rather, we assess the need for the Irish schedule vs. what other European countries do, we suppose no need to vaccinate infants against sexually transmitted diseases, we utilise our Christian insight / practical experience regarding (corporate especially) mankind's corruption ... and decide not vaccinating the better gamble.
Your ordinary man has no basis to question the body science. At least, you haven't proposed anything of substance yet.
He employed the same techniques as you do. Obfuscate (the tradesman bolting a bridge together is somehow equipped to be a design engineer - ho, ho, ho), make grossly simplified statements, appeal to "common sense" ( a bit like you do with your "life can't arise from non life" and generally don't stick around on a point long enough to have to defend it.
Proper scientists (i.e. those who are qualified and operate soberly and considerately) wouldn't, of course, have a hope against that. I utterly agree with their refusing to "debate" the likes of such dishonesty.
Unfortunately, we have no way of calibrating how well they do in this task. I've had the privilege of sitting in the high court watching such evidence being evaluated. By a judge in that case. It wasn't a case of the judge correctly interpreting the evidence. It was a case of which barrister could play the game the best.
Not for nothing the idea that justice isn't necessarily to be found in a court of law.
The point was that ordinary man is faced with choosing to accept that science is correct in it's assessment (whilst having good reason to suppose the scientific endeavor and worthwhile one to value the opinion of). Or choosing to believe in a conspiracy.
Little wonder than few, apart from religious fundamentalists, who've a particular, literalist reading of the Bible to grind, disbelieve the scientists. They have absolutely no good reason (form their perspective) to do so.
Like I said above, ordinary man won't consider it a stretch to move some lifeless molecules into the simplest form of life. They won't be all that worried that science hasn't demonstrated it yet - given the alternative "movement's" modus operandi.
Knowing is as irrelevant here as it is in a court of law - once confined to playing by the rules of the game. Your "theory" has to provide the means/observations/data/etc. It has to be peer reviewed. It has to be clearly superior to the alernative case.
You can cry all you like about conspiracy against creationists. But you won't win by the rules.
Survival is in the eye of the beholder. You might consider having survived some of the bonkers suggestions you've made to me in these last posts: a bricklayer understanding bridge design because he's clad a few in his time .. just because you persist in that view. All you need do to survive is not be embarrass-able
Like I say, post a link to a discussion you had here or anywhere with real, live published scientists and let's see how you did. Something which involves you presenting some real scientific meat and potatoes when it comes to the specific area under discussion.
I suspect you won't, because I suspect you didn't. If boards is all you have - which isn't really saying that much, given the quality of discussion out there, then you could, by all means, treat us to a thread on EvC. All you have to do is pick a topic, make a claim and let the games commence.
Existence should reasonably bear the hallmark of it's originator.
If it's an omnipotent, consciously aware God then that being must surely be seen as a reflection of his creation - in other words, existence is, wholly or in part, what God is.0 -
-
You don't actually need to be a scientist to see that some scientific prognostications are baloney.
What had you got in mind specifically? Life from non-life isn't one of themThe ordinary man ... wouldn't believe that the Biological Law of Biogenesis...
The ordinary man has no need to suppose such a law exists.to maintain the illusion that pondkind can spontaneously 'evolve' into ankind ... even when all logic and evidence proves that it cannot.
There is nothing illogical about evolution. It's mechanism involves concepts a child could understand. Whether or not it the evidence stacks up is beyond ordinary man.When it comes to bridge design ... resilience in storms is proven by experience ... and provided for by over-specification. Many bridge erectors have much more experience (and expertise) in erecting bridges ... than the (often young and inexperienced) engineers who design them.
We're not talking erecting bridges or observing that they stand by way of experience. We're talking of their design. You say ordinary man can somehow determine the adequacy of the design by way of some kind of simplification of the processes involved in the design.
That contention is beyond ludicrous.
And so, ordinary man cannot establish whether the design of ToE stands up.
You assert the cart before the horse: in supposing it obviously collapsed for ordinary man to see. But have little more than bald assertion to back you up: life from non-life is nonsense. Say's but you.It has indeed been the fate of the 'ordinary man' down the centuries to be exploited and lied to by various elites ... he has been used as cannon fodder by generals, screwed by banks, evicted by landlords and treated with contempt by various self-serving intellectuals ... from priests to scientists ... all of whom are only too happy to take his money ... by force of taxation, if necessary, to fund their lifestyles and pet projects.
None of which assists him in deciding the design of the bridge adequate.In going against mainstream science on this ... are you behaving as an ordinary (or an extraordinary) man ???
Mainstream science accepts there are risks to vaccines. Once establishing that, it is down to me to decide whether I want to take that risk, however small it is deemed to be. And so I go digging.
And I find mainstream science (such as the current editor of The Lancet and the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine) excoriate the corrupting influence of big pharma on medical science. I find there is no need to follow the Irish schedule since other developed nations vaccinate less than we do. I understand there is a vested interest (Pharma selling drugs, the Irish Government seeking herd immunity) which makes it possible that danger might be underplayed
I am not in a position to evaluate the actual safety of a particular vaccine. I consider the risk of non-vaccination extremely low and decide not to step into a risk of unknown, but-suspected-to-be-more-than-claimed proportions.If these 'proper scientists' had answers to the many very serious questions he raised about 'pondkind to mankind evolution' they would be only too happy to answer them ... the fact that they run away when faced with these questions, tells it's own story ... and one which 'ordinary people' can work out without any difficulty!!!:)
Little point in continuing here. You seem impressed by Gish. I think he's a joke. Ne'er the twain..Science is a fallible human endeavour that often makes claims that don't stand up ... and errors of enormous proportions ... the Titanic and the Thalidomide Scandal being examples of each.
http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-government-thalidomide-prime-time-investigation-1226065-Dec2013/
A healthy scepticism for all prognostications is a good idea for the ordinary (and the extraordinary) man to adopt!!!:)
Ordinary man hasn't time for healthy scepticism on all prognostications. He is surrounded by the outworking of of scientific prognostications all day long. He goes digging when he has specific and good reason to go digging...An ordinary man won't believe that dead matter will spontaneously spring into life ... it takes an 'extraordinary' man to believe in such stuff ... "that science hasn't demonstrated yet" ... to use your own words !!:eek:;)
Again, there is no resolution to be had here. Our view on what an ordinary man would suppose is at irreconcilable odds, without there being a way to arrive at consensus.
-
I'll wrap up here. Discussion necessitates a degree of common ground / common acceptances. And we're not on common ground in all manner of ways.
Cheers and happy new year0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement