Is Atheism Unscientific?
- Thread starter th.w.heller
- Start date
- Status
I'm sure you've overestimated many things, my reading isn't one of them.
This is ad nauseum.
Must I say the obvious....Are you really going to force me to say the obvious? Let's see if I'm underestimating you.
What would be the logical response to someone who offers an addition problem to solve a biological problem?
This is ad nauseum.
Must I say the obvious....Are you really going to force me to say the obvious? Let's see if I'm underestimating you.
What would be the logical response to someone who offers an addition problem to solve a biological problem?
I don't see the problem either.
People like Saquist don't get it. Evolution is not a theory, it is observational fact. Natural Selection is the theory which currently explains these observations the best. (so well, in fact, that some are pushing to begin referring to Natural Selection as Law)
The myth of lacking transient fossils is just that: a myth. The way they see it, every transient fossil found is TWO MORE missing on either side of it. I don't think they would believe their eyes if we had the remains of every organism that ever lived strewn across the cosmos.
Yes, I know it's better to talk about me than too me.
I'm not going to presume to know you and your motives but if I were to speak for myself as opposed to letting you do it... I would say.
I need Facts, not speculation.
No the Fossil record is not accurate as you say, All that we derive from it that is fact is the existence of previous animal life by they're remains. I rely on it for nothing else.
Speaking for myself, I merely do not jump to the conclusion that all animal life adapted to their current forms. There is no proof that all adapted only that some adapted and it is very precarious attempting to figure out which ones.
Is it really that bad to ask for proof? I guess so.
As I said ad nauseum.
Fraggle
If you don't want to hear responses to your claims, don't make them.
“
“
I thought I had made it clear quite a few times already.
Not empiricism for a start, since it is definitely an exclusive tool of the mesocosm
“
:shrug:
You say that the universe is a closed system on the strength of a discipline (empiricism) that hasn't "closed" a single aspect of any of its investigations.
If you don't feel comfortable with the words micro/macrocosm and mesocosm, maybe you should try explicit and tacit explanations.
As a practical example just try to explain how a cup of flour is a "closed system". (hint - you may require explicit, as opposed to tacit terminology).
If you can't explain how a cup of flour is a "closed system", what sort of (philosophical) trip are you on to start to talking about the universe being one?
You can't so much as fathom the general significance of what it means "negotiate phenomena"?
“
For instance when you say "the universe is a closed system", its good enough to pass off as explicit terminology.
When you make such claims on the basis of empiricism however, you've just blundered yourself into the realm of "reflexive criticism", Mr. Linguisitics Moderator.
hehe
You just can't stay away from those explicit terms, eh?
“
“
you say the universe is closed (an absolute definition on the "bigness" of things)
all you need to do now is give an example of some (empirical) system that has successfully "closed" its investigation on the subject
(I guess ultimately an empiricist would dread such a moment since if they found the end of anything they would jeopardize their future prospects of funding for further research)
“
Actually I am insisting that just as our senses offer a sliver of information about the world around us, scientific instruments merely offer a larger sliver.
Either of them are incapable of giving "closed" definitions, and as such, using explicit terms on the strength of them (like "the universe is a closed system" for eg) is foolishness.
“
lets examine your next post and see what "explicit" terms you use to make an absolute definition about the smallness of things (microcosm) or bigness of things (macrocosm)
“
so here you are making the claim that the "life" that a body possesses is simply a sum result of the parts, much like a pile of timber is what is utilized to produce a "house".
We have practical (empirical) experience of taking a pile of wood and making a house.
We have absolutely none of taking a bunch of chemicals and making life (outside of the literature of things like "Frankenstein" of course)
So "Life is the organization of components" becomes your microcosmic claim.
Empirically all that we see however is that "life arises from life", so the question is what are you using to make this statement? (since its obviously not empiricism)
“
Theism is simply one means of addressing the macrocosm.
As is clear from your post, you are also not shy about addressing it, and obviously you are not a religious person, so there must be other means.
So what gives?
(.... the tragi-comedy continues)
Actually I am responding to your (philosophical) claim that the universe is a closed system.
If you don't want to hear responses to your claims, don't make them.
“
when you start using the phrase "the universe is a closed system", the words macrocosm and microcosm have a very clear significance - ie what/where the universe/reality ultimately is on its smallest/largest scale
“
Really?
I thought I had made it clear quite a few times already.
Not empiricism for a start, since it is definitely an exclusive tool of the mesocosm
“
yet you can say things like "the universe is a closed system" with a straight face ....
:shrug:
What I am trying to say is quite simple
You say that the universe is a closed system on the strength of a discipline (empiricism) that hasn't "closed" a single aspect of any of its investigations.
If you don't feel comfortable with the words micro/macrocosm and mesocosm, maybe you should try explicit and tacit explanations.
As a practical example just try to explain how a cup of flour is a "closed system". (hint - you may require explicit, as opposed to tacit terminology).
If you can't explain how a cup of flour is a "closed system", what sort of (philosophical) trip are you on to start to talking about the universe being one?
Seriously?
You can't so much as fathom the general significance of what it means "negotiate phenomena"?
“
As mentioned already on quite a few occasions, discussions of the micro/macrocosm require explicit terms.
For instance when you say "the universe is a closed system", its good enough to pass off as explicit terminology.
When you make such claims on the basis of empiricism however, you've just blundered yourself into the realm of "reflexive criticism", Mr. Linguisitics Moderator.
"perfectly valid"?
hehe
You just can't stay away from those explicit terms, eh?
“
certainly a peculiar methodology you have there of making philosophical readings
“
quite simply
you say the universe is closed (an absolute definition on the "bigness" of things)
all you need to do now is give an example of some (empirical) system that has successfully "closed" its investigation on the subject
(I guess ultimately an empiricist would dread such a moment since if they found the end of anything they would jeopardize their future prospects of funding for further research)
“
I thought we had cleared this up, but just to reiterate .....
Actually I am insisting that just as our senses offer a sliver of information about the world around us, scientific instruments merely offer a larger sliver.
Either of them are incapable of giving "closed" definitions, and as such, using explicit terms on the strength of them (like "the universe is a closed system" for eg) is foolishness.
“
ok
lets examine your next post and see what "explicit" terms you use to make an absolute definition about the smallness of things (microcosm) or bigness of things (macrocosm)
“
ok
so here you are making the claim that the "life" that a body possesses is simply a sum result of the parts, much like a pile of timber is what is utilized to produce a "house".
We have practical (empirical) experience of taking a pile of wood and making a house.
We have absolutely none of taking a bunch of chemicals and making life (outside of the literature of things like "Frankenstein" of course)
So "Life is the organization of components" becomes your microcosmic claim.
Empirically all that we see however is that "life arises from life", so the question is what are you using to make this statement? (since its obviously not empiricism)
“
Er.... no
Theism is simply one means of addressing the macrocosm.
As is clear from your post, you are also not shy about addressing it, and obviously you are not a religious person, so there must be other means.
So what gives?
and Mr Empiricist, how do you propose to come up with evidence for the macrocosm?
(.... the tragi-comedy continues)
The fact is we have enough fossil evidence to have absolutely no doubt that all animal life on Earth evolved from more "primitive" forms. All of it. No exceptions. Observational fact.
Disputing this should get you on every other members' ignore list.
John Connellan
Valued Senior Member
People like Saquist don't get it. Evolution is not a theory, it is observational fact. Natural Selection is the theory which currently explains these observations the best. (so well, in fact, that some are pushing to begin referring to Natural Selection as Law)
I disagree. The reason people are pushing Natural Selection as law is because natural selection is not a theory. Natural selection is a consequence of mutation, selective pressure and inheritance and must happen.
I would say evolution is a theory that natural selection (encompassing all selective pressures) is the cause of evolving life on earth.
There is more evidence and proof for evolution and natural selection than there is for gravitational theory, or even for the mechanism that drives Earth's magnetic field.
If it did not clash with your religion, you would not have an objection. You are treating evolution with too much emotion and not enough reason. Many theologians are convinced that God created life through evolution and natural selection.
Honestly, the resistance here is no different than those who felt threatened when the Earth was found to orbit the Sun. We make fun of those people today, but evolution doubters are no different. And it never fails that they spend absolutely no time reading books and essays on the matter. All they read is their dogmatic rebuttals from the lead doubters.
Atheist and professor of biology, Dean Kenyan set out to prove evolution. He wrote a book called "Biochemical Predestination". A few years later what he found is that he couldn't defend his assertions honestly and unguided evolution provided little that was intellectually satisfying in relation to all of his studies.
You're just reading off the wiki now.
My Dear, swivel,
I can't remember the last time someone accused me of "having too much emotion. Let's not speak in superlatives.
I don't mean to offend you. I'm sure you believe more evidence equals more validity but that sort of quantive statement is like the comments made by wizard who thinks biology is simply 1+1=2. I think there is a math to biology but we haven't figured it out yet. We're still analyzing the results from the human genome project. I suspect once we do finished and it should be some years, it will expand our understanding of life. I can't say in which direction.
Swivel when it comes to science I only believe what I see. Facts and logic. There is no room for faith and certainly the study in any discipline is prone to error. It is the nature of discovery. If you feel evolution as a whole best describes life as we know it, that is perfectly find. It doesn't offend me. I like debate and litigation but I never wish anyone to take such pursuits personally.
But what do I have to feel threatened about? If evolution proves to be true I can feel free to do what ever I want. God and Evolution are clearly uncompatible theries from a Christian perspective. Many will attempt to make mediating theories that undermine one or the other but it become clear to me that it's either one...or the other.
So that you'll know. I do know evolution exist. Plants and animals are adaptable and they have changed greatly over a very short period of time. I call this adaptation others know it as micro evolution. This has been observed. This has been tested, this has been proven.
But it is the superlative of this that isn't necessarily true. We've seen no proof that macro evolution occurs, it's not tested it hasn't been observed.
When it is I'll have no reason to have faith in God but untill then that bridge doesn't exist and it is quite a gulf science is attempting to cross.
I would describe it as attempting to bridge the Atlantic with a construction of popcicle sticks. I'am a drafter. I know that is possible to design such a structure in CAD, however in the real world there are forces at work that easily over come the best construction methods let alone materials so slight. The same is true with genetics and evolution. 1+1=2 sounds good and simple but the problems are there are many negatives in the equation of the real world that make it impratical.
That's my position and it seems to be well supported by the facts and observation.
Last edited:
I don't read Wikipedia.
I find it amazing that you can believe in micro evolution and not think that over a long period of time this would lead to divergence of species into new kinds.
We have fossils of land-dwelling whales, and whales with vestigial limbs. Observing these physical facts and not accepting macro-evolution can only be explained by some sort of non-rational bias.
I find it amazing that you can believe in micro evolution and not think that over a long period of time this would lead to divergence of species into new kinds.
We have fossils of land-dwelling whales, and whales with vestigial limbs. Observing these physical facts and not accepting macro-evolution can only be explained by some sort of non-rational bias.
Saquist, macro-evolution cannot by definition be observed directly, that doesn't mean it is not extremely well supported by abundant evidence.
evolution is a fact because it's observed.
Precisely. You could use the same arguments to doubt the existence of electrons.
Aren't you guys tired of this argument? It goes back and forth and no one understands the other person's position any more the then billionth time than the first. We could analogy untill we've turned to dust. But doesn't seem like you get it nor am I am seeing the necessary proof to find the evolutionary assertion completely valid.
I find this a curious divergence of fact vs speculation.
Yet I get the sense from individuals such as wizard and Sarkus aswell as a few others that you consider the position as a sort of...an affront against you personally.
What is it do you personally hope to gain from the confrontation?
- Status