The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Delirium · 13-03-2013 08:56PM

J C wrote: »

Pluralism and respect for diversity cuts both ways ... up to now its been a 'one way street' as Atheists and their fellows have demanded equality with other faiths and the separation of Faith and State. They have taken every concession granted to them ... but they have granted no concessions themselves.
They have called for the separation of church and state ... when there wasn't unity, in the first place ... and they have promptly turned around to ask the state to use law to ensure that their faith (and their faith alone) in Materialistic Evolution and Abiogensesis be taught as fact to children of all religions and none.
Atheists need to show the same respect to Theists that they would like to receive from Theists.
This respect need to be more than words ... it needs to be (and be seen to be) expressed in parity of esteem and allocation of public funding for both the 'God did it' as well as the 'God didn't do it' Hypotheses within the 'origins' research that is controlled by practical atheism.

Respect also needs to be given within public schools to the 'origins' beliefs of Theists, instead of only the 'origins' beliefs of practical Atheism being allowed in public schools.

You seem to be confusing society with science. I totally agree that theists and atheists (and any other religious/non-religious) groups shouldn't be discriminated against.

But I can't agree to stripping away all scientific requirements for evidence and experimentation to prove an idea. You don't want parity of esteem between evolution and other ideas. You want the non-evolution explanations to be able to skip past the heavy lifting of scientific endeavour. It's a terrible idea.

J C · 13-03-2013 09:05PM

doctoremma wrote: »

That's the craziest argument you've ever made.

What is 'crazy' about it?

J C · 13-03-2013 09:08PM

Sin City wrote: »

Respect is earned, not just given

Respect is a requirement for harmonious relationships within pluralist societies.
... and it is a right enjoyed by all citizens and taxpayers opposite the state and all agents acting on behalf of the state.
... I respect you, and your God-given rights ... whether you have earned my respect or not.

J C · 13-03-2013 09:14PM

koth wrote: »

You seem to be confusing society with science. I totally agree that theists and atheists (and any other religious/non-religious) groups shouldn't be discriminated against.

But I can't agree to stripping away all scientific requirements for evidence and experimentation to prove an idea. You don't want parity of esteem between evolution and other ideas. You want the non-evolution explanations to be able to skip past the heavy lifting of scientific endeavour. It's a terrible idea.

I'm asking for nothing to be stripped away except bias.
I want Theistic 'origins' hypotheses to be granted the same access to funding and respect as Atheistic ones ... I don't want any 'skipping past the heavy lifting' by either Atheists or Theists.
I want inclusion, not exclusion ... for both Atheists and Theists ... and their ideas.

It's certainly not too much to ask in any society worthy of the name 'pluralist'.

Delirium · 13-03-2013 09:28PM

J C wrote: »

I'm asking for nothing to be stripped away except bias.
I want Theistic 'origins' hypotheses to be granted the same access to funding and respect as Atheistic ones ... I don't want any skipping past the heavy lifting by either Atheists or Theists. I want inclusion, not exclusion ... for both Atheists and Theists.
It's not too much to ask in any society worthy of the name pluraist.

Funding is available to all contingent on pilot data/proposed experiments. If the "God did it" supporters are unable to provide such requirements then it's no surprise that they can't get funding.

We're talking about science, not society. Some ideas are excluded as they don't stand up to scrutiny. Much like how you excluded the idea of God boiling the water. No ideas are excluded once they can stand up to scrutiny. So it's not a bias, rather it's the way science is done. You're suggesting that there be no minimum requirement to receive funding.

So what experiments could the "God did it" supporters do to investigate their idea has some merit and such receive funding?

Sin City · 13-03-2013 09:30PM

J C wrote: »

Respect is a requirement for harmonious relationships within pluralist societies.
... and it is a right enjoyed by all citizens and taxpayers opposite the state and all agents acting on behalf of the state.

As was stated earlier,you seem to be talking about society, where I am talking about science.

J C · 13-03-2013 09:38PM

Sin City wrote: »

As was stated earlier,you seem to be talking about society, where I am talking about science.

Science is responsible to society ... not a plaything of some minority or other.
Yes, it requires evidential standards ... but these standards need to be applied evenly ... and it no easier and no harder to devise scientific methods to test the 'Intelligence did it' hypotheses as it is to devise scientific methods to test the 'It did itself' hypotheses.
... I know which one has the most logical sound to it ... but as a person who believes in objectivity and fair play ... I won't pre-judge the outcome ... nor advocate the exclusion of either idea.

Delirium · 13-03-2013 09:41PM

J C wrote: »

Science is responsible to society ... not a plaything of some minority or other.
Yes, it requires evidential standards ... but these standards need to be applied evenly ... and it no easier and no harder to devise scientific methods to test the 'Intelligence did it' hypotheses as it is to devise scientific methods to test the 'It did itself' hypotheses.
... I know which one has the most logical sound to it ... but as a person who believes in objectivity I won't pre-judge to outcome.

For someone claiming to believe in objectivity, you certainly don't sound like it. The whole "parity of esteem" flies in the face of objective science. They're two contrary ideas. How can science be objective when it's required to treat every idea as equal?

J C · 13-03-2013 09:47PM

koth wrote: »

Funding is available to all contingent on pilot data/proposed experiments. If the "God did it" supporters are unable to provide such requirements then it's no surprise that they can't get funding.

The 'Intelligence did it' hypothesis is just a capable of being scientifcally investigated as the 'Intelligence didn't do it' hypothesis ... they're just the 'flip sides of the same coin'.
Either they both can be scientifically investigated ... or neither can be investigated.

koth wrote: »

We're talking about science, not society. Some ideas are excluded as they don't stand up to scrutiny. Much like how you excluded the idea of God boiling the water. No ideas are excluded once they can stand up to scrutiny. So it's not a bias, rather it's the way science is done. You're suggesting that there be no minimum requirement to receive funding.

So what experiments could the "God did it" supporters do to investigate their idea has some merit and such receive funding?

The mirror image of the experiments that the "God didn't do it" proponents have.

doctoremma · 13-03-2013 09:53PM

JC, the wheels are falling off here, you're about to crash and burn. The last few posts from you are past stupid, all the way through my patience and well into cretinous.

'Mirror image experiments'??? WTF are you talking about?

What's the mirror image experiment of showing that E. coli can acquire, via mutation and natural selection, a novel metabolic capacity?

J C · 13-03-2013 09:53PM

koth wrote: »

For someone claiming to believe in objectivity, you certainly don't sound like it. The whole "parity of esteem" flies in the face of objective science. They're two contrary ideas. How can science be objective when it's required to treat every idea as equal?

Parity of exteem required all ideas to be tested with an open mind ... and by people who aren't biased for or against the ideas being tested.

doctoremma · 13-03-2013 09:56PM

J C wrote: »

Parity of exteem required all ideas to be tested with an open mind ... and by people who aren't biased for or against the ideas being tested.

Define the kind of tests (experiments) that can be performed.

A good scientist 'tests' without any bias for a particular outcome.

But they need to be able to 'test' in the first place.

Delirium · 13-03-2013 09:59PM

J C wrote: »

The 'Intelligence did it' hypothesis is just a capable of being scientifcally investigated as the 'Intelligence didn't do it' hypothesis ... they're just the 'flip sides of the same coin'.
Either they both can be scientifically investigated ... or neither can be investigated.

I said "God did it". There are no barriers to anyone investigating anything they wish. Funding however has a minimum requirement that must be met by anyone[ that wants funding.

The mirror image of the experiments that the "God didn't do it" proponents have.

That's not even close to an answer as science doesn't work on the premise of "God didn't do it". Want to try and give some examples of the experiments?

J C wrote: »

Parity of exteem required all ideas to be tested with an open mind ... and by people who aren't biased for or against the ideas being tested.

But we're not even at the testing stage as so far you've been demanding that everyone be allowed receive funding without any preliminary data/evidence to justify the funding.

J C · 13-03-2013 10:01PM

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, the wheels are falling off here, you're about to crash and burn. The last few posts from you are past stupid, all the way through my patience and well into cretinous.

This is the kind of utter disrespect that I'm talking about ... and it's all on the Atheistic side of the house.
Its fair comment, if you believe it, to say that my ideas about to 'crash and burn' ... but it's prejudicial unfounded ad hominism to talk about me being stupid and cretinous. If you think I'm these things ... prove it with your arguments against my ideas ... not by making nasty ad hominems against me personally.

doctoremma wrote: »

'Mirror image experiments'??? WTF are you talking about?

What's the mirror image experiment of showing that E. coli can acquire, via muration and natural selection, a novel metabolic capacity?

The mirror image ... is to test whether it is really 'novel' ... and whether it has come about through a loss of CFSI ... and whether the metabolic capacity is destructive (indicative of degeneration/devolution) ... or constructive.

J C · 13-03-2013 10:17PM

doctoremma wrote: »

A good scientist 'tests' without any bias for a particular outcome.

But they need to be able to 'test' in the first place.

There you go again, with the not-so-subtle hint that the only people able to 'test' hypotheses are Atheists and other 'like minded' people.

You exhibit such disdain and contempt for Theistic hypotheses ... how do you think you could test any 'God did it' hypotheis with anything remotely approaching objectivity ... or evaluate it for funding, for that matter?

doctoremma · 13-03-2013 10:20PM

J C wrote: »

This is the kind of disrespect that I'm talking about ... and it's all on the Athistic side of the house.
Its fair comment, if you believe it, to say that my ideas about to 'crash and burn' ... but it's prejudicial unfounded ad hominism to talk about me being stupid and cretinous. If you think I'm these things ... prove it with your arguments against my ideas ... not against me personally.

I said your posts are stupid, bordering on cretinous.

Many people here, myself included, have outlined time and time again exactly where the flaw in your thinking is. You don't understand the process of scientific investigation, you don't understand the capacity and the limits of the scientific method, you don't understand that hypotheses can never be proven.

You reject every attempt to explain this to you. You repeatedly fling back veiled insults against the scientific community who, as evident in this very thread, are trying to discuss and sometimes teach you the very basics of 'how science works'.

That you don't know about how science funding works is fine, that's information that is fairly specific to scientists.

J C wrote: »

The mirror image ... is to test whether it is really 'novel' ... and whether it has come about through a loss of CFSI ... and whether the metabolic capacity is destructive (indicative of degeneration/devolution) ... or constructive.

First you have to produce evidence that your tools (CSI) are valid.

Delirium · 13-03-2013 10:23PM

J C wrote: »

There you go again, with the not-so-subtle hint that the only people able to 'test' hypotheses are Atheists and other 'like minded' people.

You exhibit such disdain and contempt for Theistic hypotheses ... how do you think you could test any 'God did it' hypotheis with anything remotely approaching objectivity ... or evaluate it for funding, for that matter?

The point is that no-one know what tests would be carried out to prove "God did it". Want to show us otherwise?

doctoremma · 13-03-2013 10:29PM

J C wrote: »

There you go again, with the not-so-subtle hint that the only people able to 'test' hypotheses are Atheists and other 'like minded' people.

You exhibit such disdain and contempt for Theistic hypotheses ... how do you think you could test any 'God did it' hypotheis with anything remotely approaching objectivity ... or evaluate it for funding, for that matter?

I exhibit disdain and contempt for ANY hypothesis that is purported to be scientific and true, yet with zero evidence to support it. That goes for creationism, homeopathy, astrology, copper bracelets, reiki, that the MMR vaccine causes autism and, well, the list goes on.

I'm proud of being a scientist, JC. I try my hardest to do it well. If, one day, there is a body of good scientific evidence to support homeopathy, I'll happily accept it. Same for creationism.

J C · 13-03-2013 10:32PM

koth wrote: »

The point is that no-one know what tests would be carried out to prove "God did it". Want to show us otherwise?

Like I have said ... they are generally, the 'mirror image' of the 'God didn't do it' tests.
... because the 'God did it' hypotheses is the mirror image of the 'God didn't do it' hypothesis.

starskey77 · 13-03-2013 10:32PM

your man on the news brian whats his name said the new pope was a jesuit
he said it almost as if he was shocked must be a bit of history. also whats the name of the obelisk in the vatican square

doctoremma · 13-03-2013 10:34PM

J C wrote: »

Like I have said ... they are generally, the 'mirror image' of the 'God didn't do it' tests.
... because the 'God did it' hypotheses is the mirror image of the 'God didn't do it' hypothesis.

No, no, no, no, no. You can't ever show that 'God did it'. How do you not understand that?

Delirium · 13-03-2013 10:36PM

J C wrote: »

Like I have said ... they are generally, the 'mirror image' of the 'God didn't do it' tests.
... because the 'God did it' hypotheses is the mirror image of the 'God didn't do it' hypothesis.

That's not an answer. It's not a valid suggestion that a scientist wouldn't wonder if you were pulling their leg upon hearing.

Want to try and give some actual examples of testing that could be carried out by "God did it" supporters?

ManMade · 13-03-2013 10:38PM

J C wrote: »

There you go again, with the not-so-subtle hint that the only people able to 'test' hypotheses are Atheists and other 'like minded' people.

You exhibit such disdain and contempt for Theistic hypotheses ... how do you think you could test any 'God did it' hypotheis with anything remotely approaching objectivity ... or evaluate it for funding, for that matter?

So basically "atheists have their own science. So us christians should have are own god friendly science" . Do you think scientists see data proving god and ignore it. No they don't because this data doesn't exist. Do I think creationists ignore conventional real science?

Science --> Evolution
Religion --> Creation (ID is a euphemism)

You can't divide science into thiest and atheist. If all our knowledge of science was wiped out. It would be rediscovered. Yet if you wipe out creationism, it would never be rediscovered. Maybe new made up science would appear but not the exact same.

J C · 13-03-2013 10:43PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I exhibit disdain and contempt for ANY hypothesis that is purported to be scientific and true, yet with zero evidence to support it. That goes for creationism, homeopathy, astrology, copper bracelets, reiki, that the MMR vaccine causes autism and, well, the list goes on.

I'm proud of being a scientist, JC. I try my hardest to do it well. If, one day, there is a body of good scientific evidence to support homeopathy, I'll happily accept it. Same for creationism.

You're conflating 'origins' hypotheses ... which are highly susceptible to bias because of their potential serious effects on the worldview/religious beliefs of the beholder.
... with operative science hypotheses that have no effect on worldview.
To illustrate, homeopathy, copper bracelets and the MMR vaccine controversy have no effect on the balance between the Theistic/Atheistic worldviews whether they turn out to be validated or not.

On the other hand, the Atheists on this thread react with the same fury to any questioning of Evolutionism ... as a 1950's Parish Priest might have reacted to any questioning of Roman Catholicism ... and for much the same reasons, I suspect ... the fact that such questioning is a serious threat to their worldview ... and ultimately their current power over ideas and people.

Delirium · 13-03-2013 10:47PM

"God did it" supporters need to be start providing some evidence for their claims before I even feel a tremor let alone have my worldview shaken.

J C · 13-03-2013 10:51PM

doctoremma wrote: »

No, no, no, no, no. You can't ever show that 'God did it'. How do you not understand that?

This hasn't stopped you guys trying to prove that 'God didn't do it'.

It's certainly possible to scientifically prove that an 'Intelligence did it' ... who or what that 'Intelligence' was/is ... may never be answered.

starskey77 · 13-03-2013 10:54PM

whats deism something to do with voltaire

doctoremma · 13-03-2013 10:55PM

J C wrote: »

Atheists on this thread react with the same fury to any questioning of Evolutionism ... as a 1950's Parish Priest might have reacted to any questioning of Roman Catholicism ... and for much the same reasons, I suspect ... the fact that such questioning is a serious threat to their worldview ... and ultimately their current power over ideas and people.

JC, I have time and time again told you that you can find many papers that challenge evolutionary theory. Does that sound like someone who is frightened of her worldview being challenged? You're assuming that because your worldview is of utmost importance to you (to the extent that you shun any basic scientific principles), that my worldview is similarly important to me. You're wrong. I am not wedded to atheism as a worldview, atheism just describes what I believe about god. I've said it before - why on earth would someone not want to believe that god was real? I'd welcome evidence (good, scientific evidence). It would be the most major shift in knowledge in the history of humanity. The thought of something that revelationary makes me smile - it would be amazing.

Delirium · 13-03-2013 10:59PM

J C wrote: »

This hasn't stopped you guys trying to prove that 'God didn't do it'.

It's certainly possible to scientifically prove that an 'Intelligence did it' ... who or what that 'Intelligence' was/is ... may never be answered.

That statement says so much about how you misunderstand how scienitific research works.

Why would scientists willingly attempt to hobble their own work with possible detrimental effects for their work and the work of any other group who bases their work on the faulty findings?

J C · 13-03-2013 11:00PM

ManMade wrote: »

So basically "atheists have their own science. So us christians should have are own god friendly science" . Do you think scientists see data proving god and ignore it. No they don't because this data doesn't exist. Do I think creationists ignore conventional real science?

Science --> Evolution
Religion --> Creation (ID is a euphemism)

You can't divide science into thiest and atheist. If all our knowledge of science was wiped out. It would be rediscovered. Yet if you wipe out creationism, it would never be rediscovered. Maybe new made up science would appear but not the exact same.

I think the correct divisions are :-
Operative Science ---> Biology, Chemistry, Physics ... and all their branches/sub-branches.

'Origins' Science ---> Abiogenesis / Materialistic Evolution from Molecules to Man ... Theistic Evolution/ID/Creation Science.

Religion ---> Atheism ... Agnostocism ... Thesim.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments