Creationism Logical or Illogical?

[Eclogite]

Exactly what Pyrotex said, plus

Or Eclogite's recent resignation to agnosticism because evidence does not exist, yet he/she's unwilling to look past logic to faith for evidence; when he's already used faith to validate the findings of his mind in the first place.

1. My agnosticism isn't recent. It emerged almost half a century ago precisely because of my dislike for faith.

2. There is tons of evidence: it's just that none of it is especially conclusive.

3. Faith cannot, by definition, provide evidence.

4. I am curious to know where I have used faith to 'validate the findings of my mind.'

 

Regardless of what impression my posts may have given you, my primary reason for contributing to this thread was a powerful aversion to the structure of questor's argument. The terminology was ill defined; the premises were unstated, or obscure; the logical connectivity lacking.

[InfiniteNow]

And that lets me know that I am unique, the creation of mom and dad. :hihi:

Which brings up an interesting point.

 

Perhaps it is our evolution from a previous life which causes (many) people to hold a strong belief in a creater. All life about which we can discuss or conceive of came from some life before it. Considering this, it seems "logical" to believe that the universe also had a parent.

 

We're just dogs chasing our own tails, however, if we continue down that path. What created that and what created that and blah blah blah. But belief in a creator may stem from our encompassing understanding of life stemming from a life before it.

[Saitia]

Thank you, Satia.

So, how exactly do you KNOW that a man in a material universe would be unable to recognize himself as such a machine???

 

Just a hunch. . .;)

 

 

Perhaps you have observed several universes that WERE material ...and... several other universes that WEREN'T, and compared their differences? :evil:

 

Someday, but not yet.

 

By the way, welcome to the brawl.

 

Gracias; I think:hihi:

[Saitia]

Exactly what Pyrotex said, plus1. My agnosticism isn't recent. It emerged almost half a century ago precisely because of my dislike for faith.

 

That was sloppy wording on my part; I meant your recent posting of that fact.:evil:

 

2. There is tons of evidence: it's just that none of it is especially conclusive.

3. Faith cannot, by definition, provide evidence.

 

It depends on your understanding and quality of faith; i.e., faith is a living attribute of genuine personal religious experience.

 

4. I am curious to know where I have used faith to 'validate the findings of my mind.'

 

What do you use to validate the reality of mind and it's perceptions as real?:hihi:

 

 

--Saitia

[Saitia]

I take some liberties when it comes to self identity. I have decided that I have free will. If science were to prove otherwise I would reject that science. Irrational? Yes.

 

I don't think so. Science has "proven" lots of things that it ultimately had to swallow with a nice fricassee of crow.;)

 

 

But otherwise I am both unconcious and inconsequential. I reject the possiblity that I am a passenger of fate and predefined destiny. I reject the possibility that my choices don't matter - or worse, that I am not even choosing. Free will in the face of physics means that physics as we know them today are not the be all end all of what is possible in the universe. And that lets me know that I am unique, the creation of mom and dad. :)

 

Bill

 

I'm down with all that. Thanks, mom and dad.:)

 

--Saitia

[Pyrotex]

...Science has "proven" lots of things that it ultimately had to swallow with a nice fricassee of crow....

Actually, Saitia, that isn't true. I originally heard those (almost exact) words spoken from a pulpit when I was a teenager. When I got to college, I made a point of taking the history of science class and doing some research in the library. With the exception of the Piltdown Man Hoax around 1910, I couldn't find a single instance where "science had to eat crow" -- that is, to admit that it had been wrong with the necessity of apologizing, or having to acknowledge remorse, humiliation or profound regret.

 

Unlike religion and/or theology, science is not about finding TRUTH, but rather, in finding explanations that fit most, if not all, the observable facts. As more facts come in, the explanations may be subject to modification. Science did not and does not now "eat crow" because Newton turned out to be not quite correct, or because Darwin did not know how inheritance took place, or because Faraday's equipment was crude and inaccurate.

 

Now, if you are aware of any instances where Science had to "eat crow" I would truly be glad to hear of them.

[FRIPRO]

I don't think so. Science has "proven" lots of things that it ultimately had to swallow with a nice fricassee of crow.;)

 

 

 

 

I'm down with all that. Thanks, mom and dad.:)

 

--Saitia

Perhaps you should look at various strings by FRIPRO UNIVERSE's INTELLIGENT DESIGN by EVOLUTION (UIDE)©

 

It may help you with your concept of Physics etc not always correct (I agree) but sometime a good theory comes along, and if you study the whole concept carefully, it could give you something to think about! In a sense it does back you up.

[FRIPRO]

Actually, Saitia, that isn't true. I originally heard those (almost exact) words spoken from a pulpit when I was a teenager. When I got to college, I made a point of taking the history of science class and doing some research in the library. With the exception of the Piltdown Man Hoax around 1910, I couldn't find a single instance where "science had to eat crow" -- that is, to admit that it had been wrong with the necessity of apologizing, or having to acknowledge remorse, humiliation or profound regret.

 

Unlike religion and/or theology, science is not about finding TRUTH, but rather, in finding explanations that fit most, if not all, the observable facts. As more facts come in, the explanations may be subject to modification. Science did not and does not now "eat crow" because Newton turned out to be not quite correct, or because Darwin did not know how inheritance took place, or because Faraday's equipment was crude and inaccurate.

 

Now, if you are aware of any instances where Science had to "eat crow" I would truly be glad to hear of them.

 

 

Refer tO:UNIVERSE's INTELLIGENT DESIGN by EVOLUTION (UIDE)©

[FRIPRO]

Au contraire, mon amie!!!

I and my friends have believed a number of things over the years that got us pilloried and posted. Sometimes the social pressure and pain was immense. But it did NOT stop us from believing! In fact, the belief continued as though nothing was going on. The belief itself remained unquestioned and pristine. Now, we often wondered why so many people were "picking on us" and why we were unpopular is certain circles, but the believing remained easy. Believing is easy.

 

I had a friend who dumped me because I demonstrated that his belief in astrology was bogus. He lost several friends. Keeping his belief was easier, but not painless. Look at the people who believe in crop circles. Even after the hoaxers confessed and demonstrated HOW the did it, there were and are "believers". Believing is easy.

 

I have two wonderful friends who belong to a church where miraculous healing is supposed to happen all the time. They're seeing doctors now, for their diabetes and arthritis. But they still "believe", in fact, they tell me that they cannot "not believe" any more. Believing is easy. Believing doesn't care if you are the object of social ridicule or logical boguzification.

 

Congratulations I certianly believe that Astrology is valid Here is a thought:There may be more to the sub-science of astrology.

 

It is the theory that when man is born on the earth, he is influenced by the position of the various planets, comets, sun and what have you. This will influence his actions during his lifetime. With the UIDE theory of a conscious Universe, astrology may have a new beginning! The reason being there is a direct influence on the birth, by the Universe (this is the planets ....)FRIPRO

[InfiniteNow]

Okay FRIPRO... your referral to your own work in EVERY SINGLE POST you've made is actually worse than your original posting of a link to it. Fyi... in the world of science, those who refer most to their own work tend to be the most incorrect. How about referral or supporting evidence put forth by others?

[FRIPRO]

Okay FRIPRO... your referral to your own work in EVERY SINGLE POST you've made is actually worse than your original posting of a link to it. Fyi... in the world of science, those who refer most to their own work tend to be the most incorrect. How about referral or supporting evidence put forth by others?

 

Thank you for your advice, but I have been answering those who have indicated errors in my work (about 50 50);however,have given credit to those who have asked me what I believe, about their thoughts. I am being asked for proof / evidences, yet many of the faith base creation believers have no proof/ only one minded faith in their own religion. Does that seem realistic?

 

I am being asked for evidences almost in every string - which is the most difficult to defend, as I have never cruised the Universe in space! (There is an opening!)

 

Why do you say worst? Is that not unfair? You are taking a lifetime work and crowding it into worst! Without reading the entire paper.

 

For example a string replied ("There is tons of evidence: it's just that none of it is especially conclusive")

 

Thanks, enjoyed your coments will take them in good taste. FRIPRO

[Saitia]

Dear Pyrotex,

 

Actually, Saitia, that isn't true. I originally heard those (almost exact) words spoken from a pulpit when I was a teenager. When I got to college, I made a point of taking the history of science class and doing some research in the library. With the exception of the Piltdown Man Hoax around 1910, I couldn't find a single instance where "science had to eat crow" -- that is, to admit that it had been wrong with the necessity of apologizing, or having to acknowledge remorse, humiliation or profound regret.

 

I think "science" loses its appetite before showing up at the table. Does the name Galileo Galilei ring a bell? You surely recall that classical (Ptolemaic) astronomy held that the earth was the center of the universe, accounting for the meanderings of heavenly bodies by a series of ingenious mathematical adjustments. But did you know that before Copernicus started kicking *** and taking names astrology was also a "science"? A number of universities, among them Paris, Padua, Bologna, Oxford and Florence had chairs in the subject, and the Arab and Chinese civilizations had their own astrological beliefs.

 

I'm still reluctant to haul my butt to the doctor, but it probably hasn't much to do with the fact that doctors used to think the body had twenty pints of blood, and ANY illness called for bloodletting of a couple pints, three to five times to get you back on your feet-- or not. But most of the docs had prior engagements the night of the Corvus Banquet.

 

Yep that's pretty old stuff; more recent moments of scientific dogmatism are a little harder to isolate, since the facts are now evolving (and rightly so) which tends to take the edge off the absolute nature of many confident pronouncements.

 

The Big Bang theory is still wheezing along, subject to modification of course, until one day it will be totally metamorphosed into a true model of the universe. But I don't imagine the many scientists who dismantled it piece by piece into the truth will be printing up invitations to the "Big Bang-quet"-- serving that delicious corvus cassarole to their errant colleagues.

 

"One of the major intellectual weaknesses of contemporary scientists is their lack of historical perspective on scientific dogmatism. At the gut level, they believe that dogmatism and errors are definitely things of the past, when in fact the conditions for a confrontation of ideas, observations and interpretations are worse now than they were fifty years ago, the Web notwithstanding." --Thomas Y, Mentre P.

 

 

 

 

Unlike religion and/or theology, science is not about finding TRUTH, but rather, in finding explanations that fit most, if not all, the observable facts. As more facts come in, the explanations may be subject to modification. Science did not and does not now "eat crow" because Newton turned out to be not quite correct, or because Darwin did not know how inheritance took place, or because Faraday's equipment was crude and inaccurate.

 

 

Webster defines a fact as “the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth.” Science grows by gathering singular, simple facts. I think you'd agree that facts contain varying amounts of truth; but science should clearly have a bias for the facts that contain the most truth; not the least. Physicist Richard Feynman says, “The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific Truth.”

 

Thanks for your thoughts,

--Saitia

[Eclogite]

What do you use to validate the reality of mind and it's perceptions as real?:lol:

Absolutely nothing. I don't validate them as real. My agnosticism is not restricted to doubts over the existence or non-existence of God, but includes doubts over the existence or non-existence of existence.

 

I am resolute in my uncertainty.:xx:

 

 

On an earlier point, the quality of faith is irrelevant to the production of evidence on a scientific basis. Unscientific evidence is an oxymoron.

[Saitia]

Hello Eclogite,

 

Absolutely nothing. I don't validate them as real. My agnosticism is not restricted to doubts over the existence or non-existence of God, but includes doubts over the existence or non-existence of existence.

 

I am resolute in my uncertainty.:)

And what do you use to validate your resoluteness?:rose:

If your uncertainty was really resolute, you'd eventually be wearing a

cute little white coat and living in a rubber room.:)

But your relative resoluteness is still a product of your reasoning mind;

if you are experiencing it (your mind) as valid, you are making that

assumption somewhere along the way, since the process of reasoning

through mind assumes the products of mind are real.

That convenient "assumption" is really faith.

 

 

 

On an earlier point, the quality of faith is irrelevant to the production of evidence on a scientific basis.

 

You may recall I said in post #202 that "a great deal of energy has been expended. . . due to a failure to see there are specific 'methods' that must be used with the respective domains of science, religion, and philosophy. The 'scientific method' is simply an intellectual yardstick we use to measure the observable phenomena of material creation. But being material and wholly intellectual, it is useless in the evaluation of spiritual realities and religious experiences."

 

"Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."

 

 

 

 

Unscientific evidence is an oxymoron.

 

May I ask a personal question?

Have you ever loved anyone?

If so, what is the evidence of your love?

You can't weigh love in a balance; does

that mean it's not real?

 

Spiritual realities always have the advantage

over the isolated facts of time and space.

But the convincing evidence of such spiritual

certainty consists in the social fruits of the spirit;

not in a materialistic measurement of science.:rainbow:

 

 

--Saitia

[Pyrotex]

Dear Pyrotex,

I think "science" loses its appetite before showing up at the table.

I have NO idea what you might mean by this.

Does the name Galileo Galilei ring a bell? You surely recall that classical (Ptolemaic) astronomy held that the earth was the center of the universe,...

Science is generally regarded as having begun WITH Galileo. He was the first to derive his conclusions from evidence rather than from pure conjecture or theological dogma. "Science" cannot be held accountable for the conclusions reached by people who were not scientists.

I'm still reluctant to haul my butt to the doctor, but it probably hasn't much to do with the fact that doctors used to think ...ANY illness called for bloodletting...

I certainly hope it doesn't. But you are being facetious in an attempt to indicate that it would be valid to fear doctors because of widespread ignorance a century ago.

more recent moments of scientific dogmatism are a little harder to isolate, since the facts are now evolving (and rightly so) which tends to take the edge off the absolute nature of many confident pronouncements.

Why do you think Science is "dogmatic"? Because it won't listen to the adolescent ravings of spiritualists, crackpots and fabulists? Sorry, Science IS an exclusive club. If you want in, you have to be able to observe with integrity and think clearly.

The Big Bang theory is still wheezing along, subject to modification of course...

You are suffering from being badly informed, Saitia. It even occurs to me to suggest you may have been intellectually abused as a child. Every watch CSI on television? If you do, then you know that the truth takes time and effort to piece out. Halfway through a 'case' the investigators don't have the proof they need. Yet. Does that mean they are "dogmatic"? Or any of the other attributes you have implied, such as stupid, wrong-headed, demonic, insidious, etc??? NO. It means they haven't come to a final conclusion yet. They don't have enough evidence yet. The Big Bang theory is an initial attempt to explain the little evidence we have. Nobody expects it to be "the truth" three centuries from now. This is how Science works. It is how ANY investigation of anything, done with integrity, works.

...Thomas Y, Mentre P

I went to read some some of this. His (their) assumption is that history should have been different. The history of Science should have been perfect. There should have been no mistakes, no errors, no wrong guesses, no persecutions of genius, no character defects among scientists. But since there WERE, then OBVIOUSLY Science is full of ****! No. Thoma Y and Mentre P are full of **** and juvenile whining. If they want history to be different, let them go live in a different world.

Webster defines a fact as “the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth.” ...I think you'd agree that facts contain varying amounts of truth; but science should clearly have a bias for the facts that contain the most truth; not the least. Physicist Richard Feynman says, “The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific Truth.”

No, I don't agree. A fact is a "fact" by virtue of it being totally true. A "fact" cannot have a varying degree of truth. Read more Feynman. He won't mislead you. Science does have a bias for facts. However, you seem to think that the identity of a "fact" is self-evident. Often, it is not.

Truth by Revelation is instantaneous and inflexible. Truth by Science takes a long time, the path to truth is rocky and contains many fruitless cul-de-sacs, and truth must be approached and apprehended with great caution and cleverness. It can be no other way, Saitia. If it were, it wouldn't be an honest inquiry. It would be ... something else. Fabulation or Revelation or whatever.

Thank you for expressing yourself.

[Pyrotex]

Congratulations I certianly believe that Astrology is valid Here is a thought:There may be more to the sub-science of astrology....

If you quote my text, I have a right to expect that you intend to discuss it. Not a big right, perhaps, maybe only an honest expectation. But, Frip, you are being rude. I don't want to discuss your adolescent theory. I had the same theory when I was 12 or 14 years old, and toyed with it for a few years, and then I grew up. Please, no offense intended, but either contribute to THIS thread or give it up.

[Saitia]

I have NO idea what you might mean by this.

 

It was a metaphor pointing out scientists have no appetite for crow. Let's let it go.

 

 

"Science" cannot be held accountable for the conclusions reached by people who were not scientists.

 

Isn't that convenient! It's probably that "exclusive club" thing you mention below. Maybe the non-scientists didn't keep their dues up.

 

 

 

. . .you are being facetious in an attempt to indicate that it would be valid to fear doctors because of widespread ignorance a century ago.

 

Nnno, I'm "being facetious" to show some scientists have always believed some "facts" to be "totally true" that simply weren't, just as you have so graciously demonstrated in this post.

 

 

 

Why do you think Science is "dogmatic"?

See *** below.***

 

Because it won't listen to the adolescent ravings of spiritualists, crackpots and fabulists?

 

Hey hey hey-- I had my hand up first.

Mmm. . .How about "Because it won't listen. . ."?

Or because it thinks it's some sort of exclusive club;

or maybe. . . yeah, this is it:

Because it thinks there is only ONE WAY.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, Science IS an exclusive club. If you want in, you have to be able to observe with integrity and think clearly.

 

:umno: ; exclusive clubs don't interest me; nor are they a guarantee the members have integrity or are clear thinkers.

 

 

 

You are suffering from being badly informed, Saitia.

 

It occurs to me, dear Pyrotexan, you just might be demonstrating above the same kind of arrogance that causes some scientists to wax dogmatic about their facts, since all you have to determine your claim that I'm "badly informed" is an email message with some brief opinions.:):rain:

 

 

It even occurs to me to suggest you may have been intellectually abused as a child.

 

Wow;:beer: :) :girl_hug: You didn't attend the Doctor Bill Frist School of Video Diagnosis:dead: by any chance did you?!?

 

 

 

Every watch CSI on television? If you do, then you know that the truth takes time and effort to piece out. Halfway through a 'case' the investigators don't have the proof they need. Yet. Does that mean they are "dogmatic"?

 

Let's see-- is that a forty-five minute TV show with actors reading a script between fifteen minutes of commercials? Yeah, truth takes time and effort to "piece out." A lot longer than an hour, usually. I've never watched the show, or played a forensic scientist on television; but in real life I was a crime scene technician for more than ten years. And I can tell you from firsthand experience that the people to which I handed my evidence were often totally convinced of who did the deed long before their was evidence that might prove it. Anyway thanks for pointing that out.

 

 

Or any of the other attributes you have implied, such as stupid, wrong-headed, demonic, insidious, etc???

 

In future, won't you be kind enough to include the pertinent quote that you feel shows what you claim I implied? As it is, no one can decide if your inference is accurate, "stupid, wrong-headed, demonic," or just something that flew outa yo' butt, without searching for it in the original post. Thanks in advance.:)

 

 

The Big Bang theory is an initial attempt to explain the little evidence we have. Nobody expects it to be "the truth" three centuries from now.

 

Okay, I'll bite: When DO they expect it to be "the truth"?

:wave: :wave:

 

 

I went to read some some of this. His (their) assumption is that history should have been different. The history of Science should have been perfect. There should have been no mistakes, no errors, no wrong guesses, no persecutions of genius, no character defects among scientists. But since there WERE, then OBVIOUSLY Science is full of ****! No. Thoma Y and Mentre P are full of **** and juvenile whining. If they want history to be different, let them go live in a different world.

 

But how do you realllly feel?

Alright; let's assume you're stating a "totally true" fact: they're "full of **** and juvenile whining.":rant:

Regardless of how they feel about history-- which can't be changed, but from which we can learn-- they're still whining about the present state of cosmological research, and so are a number of others, because the field is still full of "exclusive club" members who think their work is "fact" just like it is, thank you-- So what would you say the odds are they're ALL just constipated youths masquerading as scientists? Isn't it at least possible an old dues-paying club member with chronic diarrhea feels like they do?

 

 

No, I don't agree. A fact is a "fact" by virtue of it being totally true. A "fact" cannot have a varying degree of truth.

 

If your statement were "totally true," then any "fact" ever

touted as one would still be "totally true" today, wouldn't it?? :evil:

Truth is relative; and that's totally true. ;)

When truth becomes linked with fact,

then both time and space condition its meanings.

In other words, facts must be only relatively true.

Thus theories, models, religions, philosophies, persons-- keep changing.

 

 

Read more Feynman. He won't mislead you. Science does have a bias for facts. However, you seem to think that the identity of a "fact" is self-evident. Often, it is not.

Not at all.

But consistent logic tolerates the concept of truth alongside

the observation of fact, Pyro. Scientific materialism has

gone bankrupt when it persists, in the face of each recurring

universe phenomenon, in refunding its current objections by

referring what is admittedly higher back into that which is

admittedly lower. Consistency demands the recognition of the

activities of a purposive Creator.

 

Truth by Revelation is instantaneous and inflexible.

 

"Truth by Revelation" may indeed be instantaneous, but it is always ALIVE and flexible; it is fact which is rigid and unyielding.

 

 

 

 

Truth by Science takes a long time, the path to truth is rocky and contains many fruitless cul-de-sacs, and truth must be approached and apprehended with great caution and cleverness.

 

Discovering Truth (with a capital T) is arduous business no matter how you do it; but once you have discovered some, the caution is needed to prevent the forming of a fetish-- a fetish of factualized truth-- so-called unchanging truth; it can hold one blindly in a closed circle of cold dead fact. One can be technically right as to fact-- and everlastingly wrong in the truth.

 

 

***It can be no other way,*** Saitia.

 

Gosh; I'm glad that's settled!:rain:

 

--Saitia