Creationists admit "We are losing badly"

[Greg Jennings]

Mutation and natural selection. Not common descent.



You didn't even use the word evolution so I'm guessing you just gave up here.




Also didn't use the word evolution here. Do you realize that antibiotic resistance disappears when the antibiotic is removed? That's why doctors are trying to reduce antibiotic use. It's natural selection in action, not common descent.

Wow. Just wow. You pretend to know something about science and evolution, then you just show how clueless you really are when you say that oncogenes and MRSA have nothing to do with evolution. Not to mention you've had the difference between evolution and common descent pointed out repeatedly. But you don't care do you? You're a complete moron. I see that clearly now. So so clearly. I must now go and repent for wasting so much time talking to a scientifically ignorant doofus like yourself. In the end you're just another meaningless person who can't look honesty in the eye.


I guess I forgot that Bible verse where God says, "Go ye, and be ignorant of science and how the world works!"

 

[badp]

Wow. Just wow. You pretend to know something about science and evolution, then you just show how clueless you really are when you say that oncogenes and MRSA have nothing to do with evolution. Not to mention you've had the difference between evolution and common descent pointed out repeatedly. But you don't care do you? You're a complete moron. I see that clearly now. So so clearly. I must now go and repent for wasting so much time talking to a scientifically ignorant doofus like yourself. In the end you're just another meaningless person who can't look honesty in the eye.


I guess I forgot that Bible verse where God says, "Go ye, and be ignorant of science and how the world works!"

And that, folks, is why my slogan/motto says what it does.

Greg, thanks for conceding so eloquently

 

[Greg Jennings]

And that, folks, is why my slogan/motto says what it does.

Greg, thanks for conceding so eloquently

Just like our definitions of science, scientific theory, and evolutionary theory differ (with you erring in all), our definitions of "concede" certainly are different.

I tried to explain to you what was reality. You don't want to hear it. May I trouble you for the last time you took any course in biological science? I'm willing to bet it is somewhere between 40 years ago and never

 

[badp]

Maybe I should have said you just gave up. Like I said, I've been at this a long time. You haven't said anything I haven't refuted hundreds of times before.

BTW, do you realize that modern science is all based on philosophy?

 

[gcthomas]

Maybe I should have said you just gave up. Like I said, I've been at this a long time. You haven't said anything I haven't refuted hundreds of times before.

BTW, do you realize that modern science is all based on philosophy?

Philosophers would love that to be true, since science has usurped their primacy by actually producing the goods, but it isn't.

(It may have had an origin with philosophers, but it has grown up and left home now.)

 

[Greg Jennings]

Maybe I should have said you just gave up. Like I said, I've been at this a long time. You haven't said anything I haven't refuted hundreds of times before.

Fundamentalist delusionary complexes are truly fascinating.

BTW, do you realize that modern science is all based on philosophy?

Really? Explain to me how modern astronomy or biology or chemistry is all based on philosophy?

 

[badp]

Methodological naturalism is a philosophy, and it's what modern science is based on.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Methodological naturalism is a philosophy, and it's what modern science is based on.

So you admit that modern biology, chemistry, astronomy and so on aren't actually philosophy? And that you were using massive hyperbole in order to pretend to make a point?

Just when I thought you were a dirty, dishonest "Christian" you finally show some virtue

 

[badp]

So you admit that modern biology, chemistry, astronomy and so on aren't actually philosophy? And that you were using massive hyperbole in order to pretend to make a point?

Just when I thought you were a dirty, dishonest "Christian" you finally show some virtue

What most modern scientists call "science" is bound to the philosophy of methodological naturalism, which is the idea Carl Sagan put forth as "the Cosmos is all there ever is, ever was, and ever will be." That's not a scientific statement. It's purely philosophy.

The idea that you can perform an experiment, get a result, and trust that result you observe is what actually happened is a philosophical proposition.

The belief that statistical correlations have a correspondence to reality is a philosophical assertion.

So yes, science is deeply, deeply rooted in philosophy. And I'd love for you to provide a countering example.

 

[gcthomas]

What most modern scientists call "science" is bound to the philosophy of methodological naturalism, which is the idea Carl Sagan put forth as "the Cosmos is all there ever is, ever was, and ever will be." That's not a scientific statement. It's purely philosophy.

The idea that you can perform an experiment, get a result, and trust that result you observe is what actually happened is a philosophical proposition.

The belief that statistical correlations have a correspondence to reality is a philosophical assertion.

So yes, science is deeply, deeply rooted in philosophy. And I'd love for you to provide a countering example.

By that argument, EVERYTHING is based on philosophy. Which makes your point wrong or utterly trivial and meaningless.

 

[Greg Jennings]

What most modern scientists call "science" is bound to the philosophy of methodological naturalism, which is the idea Carl Sagan put forth as "the Cosmos is all there ever is, ever was, and ever will be." That's not a scientific statement. It's purely philosophy.

Lol yes. That's because it's entertainment. Do you think theoretical and quantum physicists say to each other, "this is all there ever was and will be, without question."? Of course not. Unfortunately entertainment tends to bend reality a bit.

The idea that you can perform an experiment, get a result, and trust that result you observe is what actually happened is a philosophical proposition.

The belief that statistical correlations have a correspondence to reality is a philosophical assertion.

So yes, science is deeply, deeply rooted in philosophy. And I'd love for you to provide a countering example.

I didn't say that the scientific method isn't somewhat rooted in philosophy. I asked you how modern astronomy, biology, or chemistry is, and you've punted over and over. People notice those things.

Its fourth and inches and you're down 20. Time to quit punting

 

[badp]

By that argument, EVERYTHING is based on philosophy. Which makes your point wrong or utterly trivial and meaningless.

Very good. Someone give this man a cigar :cigar:

 

[User Name]

You obviously missed the keyword: observed.

Nothing in any of those links says plume-induced subduction has been observed.

The idea that you can perform an experiment, get a result, and trust that result you observe is what actually happened is a philosophical proposition.

Notice the contradiction between the two quotes posted above. First he says that plate tectonics must necessarily be false because it has never been directly observed. Then he says that "The idea that you can perform an experiment, get a result, and trust that result you observe is what actually happened" can also be dismissed out of hand because it is merely "a philosophical proposition."

 

[badp]

Lol yes. That's because it's entertainment. Do you think theoretical and quantum physicists say to each other, "this is all there ever was and will be, without question."? Of course not. Unfortunately entertainment tends to bend reality a bit.

Except it wasn't just Carl Sagan in Cosmos. It's everyone who promotes evolution. Even the insane atheist trolls at RationalWiki agree with me on this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

I didn't say that the scientific method isn't somewhat rooted in philosophy. I asked you how modern astronomy, biology, or chemistry is, and you've punted over and over. People notice those things.

I gave you examples, which you ignored. I even asked you for a counter example, which you also ignored.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Except it wasn't just Carl Sagan in Cosmos. It's everyone who promotes evolution. Even the insane atheist trolls at RationalWiki agree with me on this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Methodological_naturalism

I was personally talking about the possibility of a previously existing universe prior to our own, but the God thing you're not exactly right on either. You do realize that many scientists in evolutionary or astronomical fields are themselves Christian, don't you?

I gave you examples, which you ignored. I even asked you for a counter example, which you also ignored.

I guess if making an unbacked assertion not dealing with any of the fields I mentioned counts as an example, then you're right. Fortunately, this is reality, and that's not it works

 

[badp]

I was personally talking about the possibility of a previously existing universe prior to our own, but the God thing you're not exactly right on either. You do realize that many scientists in evolutionary or astronomical fields are themselves Christian, don't you?

Christian scientists, huh? Ya don't say? :think: I recall some guy named Richard Sternberg who was ousted from the Smithsonian because he broke wind and it sounded like "Intelligent design"

I guess if making an unbacked assertion not dealing with any of the fields I mentioned counts as an example, then you're right. Fortunately, this is reality, and that's not it works

How do you know it's reality? Sounds like a philosophical assertion to me.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Christian scientists, huh? Ya don't say? :think: I recall some guy named Richard Sternberg who was ousted from the Smithsonian because he broke wind and it sounded like "Intelligent design"

If you can make a compelling scientific case for why ID should be considered scientifically valid, then that would be a problem. However, ID requires more than a couple gaps to be filled by "Goddidit." That's not science. It can't be quantified.

I was talking about the millions of Christians out there involved in science who have no issue with evolution. When you think about it, it's a much more beautiful and efficient method of creation than plopping everything into place, static and unchanging, hopelessly doomed when the environment changes. Why do you dumb down God by giving him the creative mind of a toddler?

How do you know it's reality? Sounds like a philosophical assertion to me.

I'm not a Last Thursdayist. But maybe you are? How can you prove the Bible isn't completely made up?

 

[badp]

If you can make a compelling scientific case for why ID should be considered scientifically valid, then that would be a problem. However, ID requires more than a couple gaps to be filled by "Goddidit." That's not science. It can't be quantified.

Because "evolutiondidit" is a much more scientific explanation.:duh:

I'm not a Last Thursdayist. But maybe you are? How can you prove the Bible isn't completely made up?

Slogan/motto. To the left.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Because "evolutiondidit" is a much more scientific explanation.:duh:

Evolution explains every step in the process, and it's backed with the fossil record.

Tell me the steps for when God plops things into existence? Explain that to me scientifically, please

Slogan/motto. To the left.

Mine, too. You and your creationist buddies will be looked back on in 50 years as the greatest cancer to ever infect Christianity, and you may ultimately be its downfall as the world becomes smaller, more educated, and less prone to blind superstition

 

[badp]

Evolution explains every step in the process, and it's backed with the fossil record.

Um, no. Darwin recognized the fossil record was one of the biggest problems with his theory, and he hoped further discoveries would provide evidence for evolution. Well, over 150 years later, the fossil record still doesn't support evolution. Too many missing forms, and in the wrong order.

And no, we aren't "lucky that we have any fossils at all," nor did magical plate tectonics flip strata to change the order of the fossils. You can't appeal to "tectonicsdidit."

Tell me the steps for when God plops things into existence? Explain that to me scientifically, please

You just proved my point about philosophy. You'll only accept a naturalistic ("scientific") explanation. But you can't explain to me why the only plausible explanation must be naturalistic.

You're trapped in your own bubble and you don't even see it.

Mine, too. You and your creationist buddies will be looked back on in 50 years as the greatest cancer to ever infect Christianity, and you may ultimately be its downfall as the world becomes smaller, more educated, and less prone to blind superstition

Galileo and Isaac Newton were creationists, and Christianity is still here. So, I think your prediction might be a few hundred years too late.