I brought it up because I happened along that video showing what happens inside living cells. I have not made a theological argument.
However, the bible is either true or it is not. If one accepts it as true then anything that would constitute an inherent contradiction to the truth is false. Not every truth claim has to be independently verified on it's own merits. If someone claims that the sky is normally a splotchy orange color with patches of burgundy and emerald green, I don't have to go outside to check. Likewise, if the God I serve tells me that He created the universe and that He did so in six days and then you come along and tell me something contrary to that, who am I to believe, you or God? What you want is for people to question the very existence of the God they love and the entire life paradigm which surrounds that worldview purely on the basis of your claim to the contrary. And when they aren't willing to do so, you cry foul as though they should just know intuitively and without cause that, of course, you couldn't possibly be wrong or be making any attempt to deceive them.
Right, so effectively you're arguing this from a "creationist" perspective then. That being that the earth was created in six literal twenty four hour days as we know them now. So, inevitably you will dismiss anything that contradicts your faith in a literal reading of the creation account, science or otherwise, correct? However, what you must surely acknowledge is that theological thought on the original texts allow plenty of room for allegory and poetical narrative where it comes to Genesis. You might not agree with it but plenty of Christians find no cognitive dissonance with an old earth/evolution and belief as evidenced on here. I'm not 'wanting' people to question the existence of God whatsoever here in light of that.
Right, of course. But the point is that you are here to be convinced of anything, that isn't the reason you do this, nor does it need to be.
Sure, but if someone posts something that gives pause for thought then great.
no he hasn't. He has barely engaged the topic at all. Him calling them cranks, doesn't count as a rebuttal. What it counts as is his inability to articulate an intelligent argument against, if he's so damn smart, ought to be an easy thing to accomplish. I've presented more cojant arguments against the electric universe model than he has on that thread and I'm the one who's supposed to be arguing the affirmative side! gcthomas is a complete waste of time. I've taken him off of ignore for the last time.
Well, that's up to you of course.
I've made no effort to do so! Good grief! Doesn't anyone understand how debate is supposed to work? That thread is making an affirmative case FOR the electric universe model, not a negative case against something else. I understand that there is some overlap between those two things but I don't have to debunk one theory in order to argue in favor of another. There is no rule anywhere that even suggests that such a thing is required. Not in debate circles nor in scientific circles.
My point there was in regards to evolution, not electric universe theory.
That has been done (not by me).
Also, it isn't a mere assertion and the argument wasn't my idea.
PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS SUPPORTING INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Well, that's taken from a conservative Christian website so there's already a bias in play no? Look, if you start off with a concrete notion that the age of the earth and the universe has to be no older than 'X' amount of years then it's inevitable that any theory that doesn't comply with that belief has to be discarded yes? However, that's not how science works and given that scientific theory is constantly under test, review, due process etc it's not like evolution could hold up if it were in fact a load of absolute bunk.
This is not true. There are people that believe all kinds of incorrect things. The average person thinks that we would float off the planet if the Earth stopped spinning. There are people who believe the Earth is flat and the the Illuminati are real. There are television shows on nearly every single day featuring people who believe in poltergeists and ancient aliens.
Sure, I won't deny it but science has a habit of rooting out erroneous theories that don't pass muster due to continual peer review process.
You are effectively making an argument from popularity. "Millions of scientists could all be wrong!" Well, yes they can be and regularly are.
Well, no, I'm not and who are you to say that global scientific consensus is 'wrong' when you're effectively arguing from a position of religious faith, a particular one that renders a reading of creation as uncompromisingly literal? That's your entrenchment right there. From a logical, objective and rational perspective it makes far more sense to acknowledge that the reason evolution is accepted as fact across the board is because of the evidence. Otherwise, what? There's some sort of conspiracy going on to hide the real age of the universe etc?
Did you watch the video?
Do you understand what YouTube is and just how many people have access to the internet? How much more widespread availability do you think is possible? Something like 650,000 people have watched that video with no advertising or outside promotion of any sort. And that's just one of several videos showing similar computer animations of things are are not in dispute within scientific circles.
Yes, and there's plenty others that make similar claims or that there's proof that boogeymen live under the Vatican etc. It's just not evidence. If there were irrefutable proof that evolution was bunk it would be uncovered as that's how the process works. Look, even if there were those that were desperate to keep to such a theory the peer review process would root it out as it's ongoing and subject to ongoing testing across the board. You'd have to be one heck of a conspiracy theorist to think that could happen.
And there doesn't have to be a conspiracy. The power of paradigm (I'm gonna write a book with that title one of these days) is all that is needed. Most of these people are not liars. They really "see" this evidence all over the place. They have, however, invested their lives into their paradigm and don't dare question it. It never occurs to them to question it. They see what they see even though it isn't what they think it is. They see it for the same reason (psychologically speaking) that people in Holland saw a month's pay worth of value in a single tulip bulb during the early 17th century. They see it because they want to see it and because they think their peers see it and they like to be liked and respected by those peers.
You have your own paradigm Clete and you won't entertain anything that contradicts it yourself, no matter how much evidence is presented. You have a belief that precludes anything that possibly could. See how this works both ways?
Yes, there is a reason - just not the one you think it is.
Are you really this incapable of seeing the error in this thinking. Why would someone who shares your paradigm not interpret data the same way you do? On what basis would they question it? The only possible answer is, "From another paradigm." which scientists who have invested their entire lives into an evolutionary paradigm are not going to be willing to do in large numbers. And the ones who do are called instantly called cooks and fringe and cranks and they loose their funding and their tenure and their careers. That is at least the risk they'd be taking.
How do you suppose the theory came into being in the first place? Because of the evidence. That's how science works. From a 'creationist' perspective you have your own paradigm that's pretty much set in stone and works the
opposite of science.
I have not made bald assertions.
Um, yeah, you kinda have...you've pretty much declared evolution is impossible.
No, it isn't. That's what you want the burden to be but you don't get to decide that.
Then neither do you.
In fact, that's precisely why I started the thread by having evolutionist present their own explanation for legs in their own words. Once that is accomplished, all that is left to do is to present reality to the audience and let it do my arguing for me. Nothing anyone has said on this thread even comes close to presenting any idea at all as to how the legs on motor proteins COULD possibly evolve or even what the evolved from, never mind how they actually did evolve.
Well, yes they did, Barbarian for one but no matter what you were presented with you'd have dismissed it anyway. Look, if evolution could be proven to be false then I'd welcome it from an objective perspective but so far all you really have is an objection to it based on your literal reading of the creation account.
Further, what you suggest is precisely what modern biological science has accomplished. Scientific theories are intended to make affirmative explanations of how things work. If there is data that openly contradicts that explanation then the theory must either be modified or discarded.
Sure, and if there's falsity it gets dumped or amended accordingly.
Further still, you keep talking about "the global scientific community" as though science is about a popular vote or consensus. It isn't. Science is about the facts of reality, not convincing anyone of anything.
Well, no to the former and yes to the latter. That
is the scientific community.
Yes, it is, AB. EVERYONE is entrenched. The quicker you figure that out, the better off you'll be. If you think that any human endeavor can be divorced from emotional and psychological and political considerations then you re living in fantasy land.
Which is where peer review process comes in and across the board. 'Dr Egghead' from Siberia may be personally convinced he's found a cure for measles in vegemite. Unless he has verifiable findings and tests that corroborate that theory then Dr Egghead's passions, beliefs etc mean precisely bugger all.
Bull!
I understand that this is the way it's supposed to work but people with rose colored glasses on see pink everywhere.
No, it isn't and as above.
Science is, but it's the scientists that are the problem. They are all humans with these pesky emotions and ambition and lusts for power, fame, influence and respect.
Which again, is where peer review process comes in. I think you seriously underestimate just how stringent that is.
I have made no arguments that are based on opinion.
Sure you have, in the above no less.
In actual fact, logic happens to be dependent on belief but that's a philosophical discussion for another thread. I'll take you to have meant that logic isn't about beliefs and opinions, a point with which I agree. If I'm wrong then make the argument, I have.
Well, no it isn't. That's just assertion on your part and one I'll wager you can't substantiate outside of subjective opinion. Else define "logic".
I don't know who FTR is. I give anyone arguing for evolution the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are atheists until given good reason to think otherwise but, as you say, it's really irrelevant. Theists are just as capable of making errors as anyone else.
'FTR' stands for 'for the record'. That you assume people to be atheists for accepting evolution is not entirely unexpected but it's rather assumptive given how many Christians have no issue with it.
The power of paradigm. Those who believe in evolution will watch that video and see evidence for evolution just like the speaker suggests at the beginning of the video. It isn't my fault that they are delusional (i.e. see things that aren't there and/or fail to see things that are.) But it also isn't invalid for me to point out the deluded state.
The power indeed, your own is staring right back at you.
As if I'm to establish my intellectual honesty on the basis of everyone else's.
You should if you're going to call theirs into question.
As before, the power of paradigm is almost universally underestimated. Although you seem to underestimate it to the point of juvenile naiveté. What panacea have you discovered where every who carries the title of "scientist" is pure as the wind driven snow.
Oh, I don't, I recognize it in those who's parameters won't allow them to see such in themselves even...
You need to do some reading on ad populum arguments. They are irrational precisely because whole groups of otherwise well meaning people can be, and often are, wrong.
Good post, by the way.
Well, if it were merely an argument appealing to popularity then you'd be correct, but it isn't. An understanding of how scientific review process works ironically precludes it.
Still, a civil conversation (I hope)
:e4e:
