tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post9097147160692869208..comments2024-03-21T03:09:04.479-06:00Comments on Atheism is Dead: PZ Myers Responds in a Self-Interested Way to Local ConditionsKenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16478151742674353783noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-87871750919096877792009-12-31T14:36:04.604-07:002009-12-31T14:36:04.604-07:00I am of course sorry to hear that, but the Holy Sp...I am of course sorry to hear that, but the Holy Spirit is the one responsible for convicting any man of his sin and bringing him to repentance, not any poor arguments we can muster.<br /><br />At the same time, you say we came across as arrogant and talking AT ppl; I ask this with all honesty, have you ever read ANY PZ Myers? Believe me, if you want Tone Police, you need to take a hard look at both sides. <br /><br />Besides, "the best evidence" takes for granted that there is any such thing as evidence. LiF's view reduces any notion of evidence to wishful thinking and rational cognitive processes to absurdity. To say his arguments were convincing demonstrates you don't really get where Bossmanham and I are coming from. <br /><br />Thank you for your thoughts.<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-48916742857871694732009-12-29T12:07:40.098-07:002009-12-29T12:07:40.098-07:00Hello Boosmanham, Rhology, and Learningisfun,
As ...Hello Boosmanham, Rhology, and Learningisfun,<br /><br />As an agnostic (read "someone who truly wants to be a christian and was looking for evidence"), I have to say, this back and forth between you three has been enlightening. <br /><br />Its more apparent to me then ever that I am not going to find my answers in Christianity. Learningisfun was respectful and thoroughly explained is point of view, including both logical and illogical presuppositions he holds in order to come to the conclusion he has. <br /><br />Rhology and Bossmanham on the other hand came off as arrogant and really seemed to be talking AT the commentators, not WITH them.<br /><br />I respect Learningisfun's stance that you must come to the best conclusion with the best evidence available. You may be wrong or you may be right. This is juxtaposed against the Christian view of inerrancy at all costs.<br /><br />I am not trying to be rude but if Rhology or Bossmanham read this, please know that your words have done more to sway me further to the side of Atheism then anything the actual Atheists have said, not that they aren't convincing in their own right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-44972101555961796762009-12-02T09:54:41.414-07:002009-12-02T09:54:41.414-07:00I'm probably wasting my breath, because if you...<i>I'm probably wasting my breath, because if you can believe in the literal truth of something as absurd as Noah's ark, then you can believe anything</i><br /><br />What is inherrently absurd about this story? It contains no logical contradictions. Everything about it is logically possible. So what's the problem? If the Bible, as it says, is inerrant, then there's no reason for me to think a story inteded as an historical account means anything other than what it says.<br /><br />I can't believe anything. I can't believe in logically contradictory things, like a square circle or something.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-41141062574486457002009-12-02T08:32:28.764-07:002009-12-02T08:32:28.764-07:00Ah, zero is a non-arbitrary amount. B/c you were ...Ah, zero is a non-arbitrary amount. B/c you were there, you know.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-76616010256460676572009-12-02T08:23:57.010-07:002009-12-02T08:23:57.010-07:00The amount of decay already-present at the beginni...The amount of decay already-present at the beginning is ZERO, not some arbitrary amount. This is because at the temperature of molten rock, argon-40 is gaseous and released from the sample. Once the rock cools, the clock starts, as the argon-40 resulting from decay is now trapped in the rock.<br /><br />Any other ideas for how two completely independent clocks give us the same wrong answer to a high degree of precision, while being off from the "truth" by 100 million percent error?LearningIsFunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-14882126453424759742009-12-02T06:37:49.869-07:002009-12-02T06:37:49.869-07:00By measuring the ratio of these elements in rocks ...<i>By measuring the ratio of these elements in rocks brought back from the moon</i><br /><br />And assuming an arbitrary amount of decay already-present at the "beginning"...<br />etc. You're supposed to be providing evidence, not assumptions. Thanks.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-9802294223519850052009-12-01T21:51:00.681-07:002009-12-01T21:51:00.681-07:00When molten rocks cool, they contain radioactive p...When molten rocks cool, they contain radioactive potassium isotopes that decay with a predictable half-life into argon. By measuring the ratio of these elements in rocks brought back from the moon, we get ratios corresponding to ~4.5 billion years of decay, based on the half-life of the radioactive decay that can be measured directly and was established prior to the moon rock experiment.<br /><br />The sun is constantly converting hydrogen into helium in a fusion reaction that consumes its hydrogen fuel at a predictable rate. When measuring the helium/hydrogen ratio of the sun, we again get an age for the solar system of around 4.5 billion years. <br /><br />So here we have two measurements based on completely different principles: one on radioactive decay, and another on fusion reactions. What are the chances that both methodologies would be flawed in the exact same way as to give us the same wrong answer? And these are just two "clocks". There are many others that corroborate these dates within a small margin of error. How can you be agnostic on this point? How can you say that the age of the earth is unknowable?<br /><br />Anyway, I'm probably wasting my breath, because if you can believe in the literal truth of something as absurd as Noah's ark, then you can believe anything. I just can't stop imagining your god in heaven right now screaming at you, "Hey! They're just stories. I gave you a brain. Use it."<br /><br />All the best, bossmanham. I'm out.LearningIsFunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-58641975082412873512009-12-01T17:27:40.207-07:002009-12-01T17:27:40.207-07:00I'm pretty agnostic on the age of the earth. I...I'm pretty agnostic on the age of the earth. I was an old-earther, then a young-earther, and now I'm agnostic (on the earth's age). I've seen decent arguments, both scientific and theological, on both sides.<br /><br />Yes I do believe Noah's ark was a literal event.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-76661009719872353662009-11-30T17:41:06.795-07:002009-11-30T17:41:06.795-07:00bossmanham,
You appeared to accept that an event ...bossmanham,<br /><br />You appeared to accept that an event called the Cambrian explosion happened ~530 million years ago. Rhology doesn't think that anything happened before ~6000 years ago. So, Rhology is off by at least ~10,000,000 percent. I'd call that a big difference.<br /><br />Do you think that Noah's ark literally happened like Rhology does? <br /><br />Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, but then again, maybe you need to give yourself more credit.<br /><br />Cheers.LearningIsFunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-37451984831565137252009-11-30T14:55:19.906-07:002009-11-30T14:55:19.906-07:0090% of the disagreements you have with me, you als...<i>90% of the disagreements you have with me, you also have with the Discovery Institute, bossmanham, and most Christians I know.</i><br /><br />I actually don't see much I'm disagreeing with him on. Could you be more specific?bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-66961067304692565212009-11-30T12:40:01.324-07:002009-11-30T12:40:01.324-07:00I could explain how we know the age of the earth f...<i>I could explain how we know the age of the earth from many convergent dating methods</i><br /><br />1) Thus reducing back to naturalism. That's why I bring it up over and over.<br />2) CSI methods vs infallible witness.<br />3) Which methods are notoriously easy to contaminate and make way-out, fantastic errors.<br />4) Which methods assume w/o evidence a given level of decay originally present at the beginning.<br />5) Which methods appeal to strata, which appeal to the dating methods, which appeal to strata...<br />6) Which methods are attempting to make use of things that are not meant for dating, much like considering a rooster an alarm clock.<br /><br />Yes, please explain away.<br /><br /><br /><i>I could explain why the biogeography predictions of Noah's ark are completely inconsistent with what we find in the fossil record and in modern species.</i><br /><br />Oh, you have some knowledge about what land passages were available to animals at Noah's time? Where did you get your time machine?<br /><br /><br /><i>But none of that would matter to you, because God can make anything appear like anything else.</i><br /><br />Rather, b/c I don't assume naturalism, b/c God's communication is a higher standard of evidence than this weak tripe you're throwing out.<br /><br /><br /><i>90% of the disagreements you have with me, you also have with the Discovery Institute, bossmanham, and most Christians I know.</i><br /><br />Perhaps. And?<br /><br /><br /><i>I'd rather spend my time talking about the other 10%, where there is at least some room for rational discussion.</i><br /><br />You're after rational discussion? You've fastidiously told me that presuppositions are unimportant and sidestepped your own claims w.r.t. the p.o.f. and I'M the one avoiding rational discussion? OK. <br /><br /><br /><i>I can support my position with mountains of evidence.</i><br /><br /><b>So do it. You say you have evidence, bring it forward.</b>Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-59076816451378431002009-11-30T12:34:11.957-07:002009-11-30T12:34:11.957-07:00And I've yet to see any genome-related fact th...<i>And I've yet to see any genome-related fact that couldn't just as well be explained by creationism as by evolution from CD.</i><br /><br />I wonder if that has something to do with creationism not being falsifiable by evidence. Hmmm. <br /><br />We're back to where we started. Honestly, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation. I could explain how we know the age of the earth from many convergent dating methods. I could explain why the biogeography predictions of Noah's ark are completely inconsistent with what we find in the fossil record and in modern species. But none of that would matter to you, because God can make anything appear like anything else.<br /><br />90% of the disagreements you have with me, you also have with the Discovery Institute, bossmanham, and most Christians I know. I'll let them explain these things to you, because I'm done. I'd rather spend my time talking about the other 10%, where there is at least some room for rational discussion.<br /><br />And yes, I guess I am high-minded now. We're not talking about subjective claims of morality, ice cream flavors, or vagueness. We're talking about whether the earth has been around for more than a few thousand years. That is a question about objective reality. On this matter, I am right and you are wrong. I can support my position with mountains of evidence. You have a book that you have chosen to believe literally, despite its conflicts with every branch of science from geology to astronomy to physics to chemistry.<br /><br />You are the scientific equivalent of the moral psychopaths we have been discussing in our other thread. You discard so much of reality, that there is not enough common ground for us to have a rational discussion. And so, I'm done.<br /><br />I haven't given up on you, though, bossmanham. You at least accept the age of the earth, based on scientific evidence. If you'd like to discuss where the evidence leads, starting from the concessions in my last message, I'd be happy to discuss that with you.LearningIsFunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-11969531397120300052009-11-30T11:25:04.124-07:002009-11-30T11:25:04.124-07:00I never said that something needs to be falsifiabl...<i>I never said that something needs to be falsifiable to be true. </i><br /><br />It was one element of your truth-finding framework. <br />But cool, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. My guess is I'll have to quote that back to you before we're done talking.<br /><br /><br /><i>If your explanation of origins is based on evidence, then please show me how we could determine if you're wrong.</i><br /><br />You could start by proving my worldview wrong. I just told you.<br /><br /><br /><i>how did God bring about the species that we find on the planet today? </i><br /><br />Glad you asked. By creation at the creation event, the Ark, and MICROevolution thru natural selection and mutation since then.<br /><br /><br /><i>Did he create them through a continuous chain of ancestry from the early Cambrian organisms?</i><br /><br />I don't see how saying "Cambrian" fits into the scenario you're using here.<br /><br /><br /><i>If he did, then we should expect the fossil record to look a certain way, and genomes to look a certain way. </i><br /><br />Sure, I guess, but there are a lot of problems with that. The fossil "record" is highly subjective and requires serious interpretative license to structure the various things that have been found. And I've yet to see any genome-related fact that couldn't just as well be explained by creationism as by evolution from CD. <br /><br /><br /><i>Does that alternative predict things about what we will find in the fossil record or genomes or biogeography that differ from the explanation above? </i><br /><br />I'm not particularly interested in the theory's predictive power, to be honest. I'm much more interested in what happen<b>ED</b> and the explanatory power of the theory. <br /><br /><br /><i>You believe something on faith. Have a great time with that. Just don't pretend like you base your stance on science.</i><br /><br />Ooh, look who's all high-minded now. HISTORICAL questions don't have to have any "predictive power" to be true. Sheesh. <br />Besides, I've asked you for evidence for your hypothesis, and all you've given me so far is stuff that is just as easily explained by my worldview. Yet you BELIEVE your position. You believe something on faith. Have a great time with that. Just don't pretend like you base your stance on science.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-63432056377599527102009-11-30T11:08:36.302-07:002009-11-30T11:08:36.302-07:00Rhology,
You and bossmanham clearly think that I&...Rhology,<br /><br />You and bossmanham clearly think that I'm making a stronger claim about falsifiability than I am. I never said that something needs to be falsifiable to be true. Go back and read what I wrote. <br /><br />What I said was that your hypothesis must be testable and therefore falsifiable <b>IF</b> evidence is to be relevant to your case. I don't claim that falsifiability itself is supported by evidence, so that's why it's not self-referential. 2+2=4 is also not evidence-based, so it is true without being falsifiable by evidence. This is not special pleading. It's a very clear category of statements I'm talking about: those that claim to be supported by evidence.<br /><br />And I'm not deciding for you whether your claim is evidence-based or not. If your explanation of origins is based on evidence, then please show me how we could determine if you're wrong. If it's not, and you support it by something like first principles as you would 2+2=4, then just embrace that you accept it for some reason other than evidence and stop screaming "Show me the evidence of common descent!" Evidence is irrelevant in that case.<br /><br />(I'll address your statements about "show me jesus' body, etc. below)<br /><br /><i>Apparently you missed the part about the PERFECT eyewitness who doesn't lie.</i><br /><br />C'mon, Rhology. Now, you're just not paying attention. Here's what I said:<br /><br /><i>But sure, if God is the witness then yeah, he's perfect, and can be trusted.</i><br /><br />Anyway, we can avoid getting distracted by naturalism, etc. if I just make concessions that are irrelevant to my point. Here we go:<br /><br />The God of the bible exists. Jesus rose from the dead. The bible is the inerrant, authoritative word of God. God created the world in six "days", including seeding the first life on earth and designing all of the body plans of the Cambrian from scratch.<br /><br />Now the question is, how did God bring about the species that we find on the planet today? Did he create them through a continuous chain of ancestry from the early Cambrian organisms?<br /><br />If he did, then we should expect the fossil record to look a certain way, and genomes to look a certain way. This hypothesis makes predictions that we can test. And so far, no one has found evidence that contradicts the predictions of this theory.<br /><br />Now do you have an alternative idea of how God created things? Does that alternative predict things about what we will find in the fossil record or genomes or biogeography that differ from the explanation above? If so, please describe what we should expect to find. If not, then our conversation is over. That's fine. You believe something on faith. Have a great time with that. Just don't pretend like you base your stance on science.LearningIsFunnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-75940045163707742802009-11-30T09:01:19.711-07:002009-11-30T09:01:19.711-07:00LiF,
It's all about worldview and presupposit...LiF,<br /><br />It's all about worldview and presuppositions. Naturalism is irrational, so using it as a presupp makes no sense.<br /><i>Because the p.o.f. is a principle, and not an explanation of fact, it is not self-referential, and therefore not self-refuting.</i><br /><br />Special pleading. So the pof is good for everything, except when you say it's not good. Gotcha.<br />I say, let's examine questions based on their explanatory power and their reliance on which worldview, and whether that worldview is rational. Pof is merely part of that, but not the end-all. <br /><br /><br /><i>The claim that life originated by a series of miraculous creations is an explanation of the facts of our current existence, the fossil record, etc.</i><br /><br />What I'm trying to say is that you need to take another route if you want to falsify that claim. Like show that the God of the Bible is irrational or sthg of that nature.<br /><br /><br /><i>an explanation of fact should only be accepted if it is the only one consistent with the facts. I was demonstrating the absurdity of this assertion by showing you that this entails that anytime we can come up with more than one explanation for something, it renders all explanations false, since they are no longer unique.</i><br /><br />Well, if there's only 1 step involved, but that's not what I'm proposing. With your alien telepathy example, now I want to ask all sorts of questions about the aliens. It's exactly what I do when confronted with the Flying Spaghetti Monster idiocy. Who are these aliens? How do you know about them? how do you know they act? How do you know your senses can properly and reliably detect them and their activity? Etc. If you have no good answers, then that's just as easily another way I can know that explanation is no good. <br /><br /><br /><i>please clarify why you think that Common Descent has already been falsified.</i><br /><br />1) Naturalism is irrational, and CD is based thereon.<br />2) The God of the Bible is the only rational worldview foundation, and He already told us how it all went down at the beginning - He created.<br /><br /><br /><i>because if I were the officer taking the statement, I would have asked a whole lot more questions.</i><br /><br />I'm glad to know that's how you feel. Now, please tell me why it's vague.<br /><br /><br /><i>And I'll cite Dawkins anytime I please! </i><br /><br />You do so at the peril of your credibility.<br /><br /><br /><i>he's also a great teacher and popularizer of science.</i><br /><br />But not PHILOSOPHY of science. Or philosophy. Or religion. Or gov't. But these days he mostly sticks to those, to his detriment.<br /><br /><br /><i>His defense of the CSI approach addresses the point you raise about origins being a historical rather than a scientific question.</i><br /><br />Apparently you missed the part about the PERFECT eyewitness who doesn't lie.<br /><br /><br /><i>If you find just one common ERV in lemurs and squirrels, but not in gorillas, then common descent is wrong.</i><br /><br />A generous statement, but there are of course many others ways to argue against it. Like saying that the facts that purportedly support it are just as easily supportive of a competing explanation. How is it helpful to argue against ID with facts that also support ID?<br />See, it comes back to philosophy, presuppositions, not "evidence". <br /><br /><br /><i>According to you, common descent is dead wrong, and easy to falsify, yet you can't provide any evidence inconsistent with it.</i><br /><br />Let's say I can't. You can't provide any inconsistent with creationism. Strange, don't you think? I guess we should by default be creationists.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-26331758316624784002009-11-28T21:07:03.647-07:002009-11-28T21:07:03.647-07:00bossmanham,
Show me where I said that something m...bossmanham,<br /><br />Show me where I said that something must be falsifiable in order to be a fact, and you might have a point. Otherwise, you're just looking for an easy way out of having to confront the evidence that you asked for and I provided. <br /><br />And no, I don't think I convinced anyone of CD, because you and Rhology have made it clear that evidence is irrelevant to what you believe. If evidence mattered to you, then you would understand why a theory must be testable and therefore falsifiable.<br /><br />If you think that the rules of science are too restrictive, then fine, present your own method of theory selection. Rhology presented an approach that demands of the theory "Facts that it alone explains, that some other competing worldview does NOT explain." I showed the absurdity of this approach, because you could toss out any explanation by simply dreaming up some wild competing explanation like alien telepathy. That approach just isn't going to work.<br /><br />Now if your theory of origins is based on testable evidence, then you will see why ERVs present such compelling evidence for CD. If you find just one common ERV in lemurs and squirrels, but not in gorillas, then common descent is wrong. If you find just one common ERV in snakes and mice, but not in turtles, then common descent is wrong. Common descent is so easily falsifiable yet no one has been able to find evidence that contradicts the theory. Why do you think that is? According to you, common descent is dead wrong, and easy to falsify, yet you can't provide any evidence inconsistent with it. Strange, don't you think?LearningIsFunhttp://www.christianpost.com/comments/bossmanhamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-18992930354007462922009-11-28T05:35:56.950-07:002009-11-28T05:35:56.950-07:00LIF,
You live in a different reality than I do to...LIF,<br /><br />You live in a different reality than I do to think that you have said anything worth convincing anyone of CD, but I guess that's the nature of the theory. I am surprised that there are still people who say that something must be falsifiable in order to be a fact. Can you falsify that statement? Is that statement fact? Your non-statement about it notwithstanding, it is a self refuting position.<br /><br />Furthermore, it is a position that would nullify other aspects of science, as there are many things that scientists assume that they cannot falsify. For instance, they assume the speed of light has remained constant, but there is no test that could confirm or deny this.bossmanhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14787721955360743058noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-24201525807477986452009-11-25T13:00:52.372-07:002009-11-25T13:00:52.372-07:00Falsifiability is a property of explanations of fa...Falsifiability is a property of explanations of fact. Because the p.o.f. is a principle, and not an explanation of fact, it is not self-referential, and therefore not self-refuting.<br /><br />As I said, I can evaluate purely logical claims based on logic, but I can only evaluate the soundness of explanations of fact if they are falsifiable. The claim that life originated by a series of miraculous creations is an explanation of the facts of our current existence, the fossil record, etc. If no evidence could ever show me that it is incorrect, then it is useless as an explanation.<br /><br />I think that you missed the point of my Intelligent Falling example. According to you, an explanation of fact should only be accepted if it is the only one consistent with the facts. I was demonstrating the absurdity of this assertion by showing you that this entails that anytime we can come up with more than one explanation for something, it renders all explanations false, since they are no longer unique.<br /><br />For example, consider the following:<br /><br />Fact: a light bulb turns on when I flip a switch.<br /><br />Explanation #1: the switch connects a circuit that allows current to flow to the bulb.<br /><br />Explanation #2: the switch connects a circuit that allows current to flow to the bulb only when you attempt to measure the current, otherwise the bulb is lit by an alien through telepathy.<br /><br />According to your method of theory selection, I would have to reject both explanations, because they are both consistent with the facts.<br /><br />According to my method of theory selection, I would have to throw out explanation #2 outright, because it is not falsifiable. I would then accept #1 tentatively, and continue to attempt to falsify it with various experiments. If I ever found a new fact incompatible with #1, I would reject is as well.<br /><br />Isn't it clear from my example that your method of theory selection, based on uniqueness, is not a very good way at arriving at the truth? If I'm misunderstanding your uniqueness requirement, please clarify why you think that Common Descent has already been falsified.<br /><br />I guess that I feel that Genesis 1 is vague testimony, because if I were the officer taking the statement, I would have asked a whole lot more questions.<br /><br />And I'll cite Dawkins anytime I please! :-P In addition to being an expert in Biology, he's also a great teacher and popularizer of science. He puts a lot of thought into developing good analogies to understand scientific ideas. My point in bringing it up was just to say that both you and Dawkins agree that the CSI analogy is a helpful teaching tool for understanding the differing approaches to explaining origins. You and Dawkins just came to different conclusions about which source is more reliable. His defense of the CSI approach addresses the point you raise about origins being a historical rather than a scientific question. I would say that it's both. <br /><br />My wife happens to be a DNA analyst at a crime lab, and I'm glad that we don't consider past crimes to be outside the purview of scientific investigation just because crimes happened in the past. DNA evidence is still considered the best way to put murderers and rapists behind bars. I can't imagine what law enforcement would be like if we kicked out all the lab geeks and replaced them with history professors.LearningIsFunhttp://www.reasons.org/does-old-earth-creationism-contradict-genesis-1-0noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-31581419411013337852009-11-25T10:56:52.812-07:002009-11-25T10:56:52.812-07:00Yes, falsifiability is required for my worldview t...<i>Yes, falsifiability is required for my worldview to make sense of questions about the natural world, such as origins. That's why I brought it up.</i><br /><br />Then the unfalsifiability of the p.o.f. is evidence of the incoherency of your worldview.<br /><br /><br /><i>However, it is the only method I know of that has demonstrated its utility at keeping false positives under control.</i><br /><br />I'm fond of logic and internal critiques, myself. <br /><br /><br /><i>but Biology is clearly within its purview.</i><br /><br />CD is not accessible by biology, however. It's an HISTORICAL question. <br /><br /><br /><i>When we apply the tools of science to the question of origins, we get common descent.</i><br /><br />Sorry, you're idolising science and have thus made a false statement. You ASSUME common descent. Give me evidence. <br /><br /><br /><i>Gravity cannot explain anything that Intelligent Falling cannot explain. </i><br /><br />True, and it just so happens that I'm a Christian. God has ordained EVERYthing that comes to pass, so it's no surprise that your statement is accurate. It's right in line with my worldview. But not in yours. I suggest you swap out, repent of your sins, and come to the Cross.<br /><br /><br /><i>He talks about how eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and uses this fun video as an illustration. But sure, if God is the witness then yeah, he's perfect, and can be trusted. </i><br /><br />So, what's your point?<br />(And don't bring up Dawkins. Seriously. The only time you should ever cite him is in his field of expertise. When he steps outside it, virtually everythg he says is idiotic.) <br /><br /><br /><i>But if Genesis 1 is supposed to be his eyewitness testimony, it's really vague. </i><br /><br />How do you figure that?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-6903520263556289182009-11-25T10:26:17.406-07:002009-11-25T10:26:17.406-07:00Hi Rhology,
Oops. I said "concede" whe...Hi Rhology,<br /><br />Oops. I said "concede" when I meant "grant" or "stipulate". Yes, falsifiability is required for my worldview to make sense of questions about the natural world, such as origins. That's why I brought it up. And that's why I cannot have a conversation with you about the evidence for common descent without you granting it. I understand the limitations of falsifiability: It is unnecessary for logical or mathematical claims that we can evaluate with certainty. I also recognize that it may produce false negatives, because true claims may not not be falsifiable. However, it is the only method I know of that has demonstrated its utility at keeping false positives under control.<br /><br />Here's a quote I like about falsifiability:<br />"Intellectual honesty does not consist in trying to entrench, or establish one's position by proving (or 'probabilifying') it—intellectual honesty consists rather in specifying precisely the conditions under which one is willing to give up one's position." - Imre Lakatos.<br /><br />I recognize that science can't do everything, but Biology is clearly within its purview. When we apply the tools of science to the question of origins, we get common descent. It didn't have to be that way. Science could have given us lots of different answers, but the one it gave us was common descent.<br /><br /><i>Facts that it alone explains, that some other competing worldview does NOT explain.</i><br /><br />No scientific theory meets your standard. Gravity cannot explain anything that Intelligent Falling cannot explain. Should we doubt gravity as a result? Likewise, wouldn't we also have to eliminate Intelligent Falling by your standard? I think you overestimate the difficulty of coming up with an explanation to match the evidence. Either my trash can stays put or it is kidnapped by aliens when I leave and returned when I come back.<br /><br />The reason that the scientific method is valuable is because it eliminates the untestable explanations that would not provide us with any useful predictions.<br /><br />It's interesting that you bring up the CSI vs. eye witness question, because Richard Dawkins uses that exact analogy in his latest book. He talks about how eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and uses <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSQJP40PcGI" rel="nofollow">this fun video</a> as an illustration. But sure, if God is the witness then yeah, he's perfect, and can be trusted. But if Genesis 1 is supposed to be his eyewitness testimony, it's really vague. Perhaps it was intentionally vague to encourage scientific inquiry.LearningIsFunhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNCDm-4tiQnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-45526372289980605102009-11-25T09:43:38.748-07:002009-11-25T09:43:38.748-07:001) No, you're mistaking me. It's falsifie...1) No, you're mistaking me. It's falsified just like the hypothesis that my stapler is responsible for the Black Plague is falsified. So I probably used the wrong word; let's just say I am asking for some actual evidence of it. Facts that it alone explains, that some other competing worldview does NOT explain. That's just a start. I'm also going to need some evidence that God, Who was there, after all, is mistaken in how it all went down, but we can tell b/c we can infer from rocks we've found.<br />Let me say it this way:<br />You have a witness to an accident who has an excellent track record of telling the truth and is of impeccable moral character. He sees an accident in the full light of day, was not impaired, stuck around 2 hours before and 2 hours after making sure he examined everything that happened.<br />Now, you bring out a CSI team 1 year later to examine the scene and try to determine what happened. Or you could just ask the witness.<br /><br />4) <i>I can't think of a similar kind of experiment that would disprove the series-of-miracles explanation.</i><br /><br />Probably b/c "experiment" is not the right kind of avenue for such a falsification. Science can't do everything, you know. It can't even do all that many things. Does some things well and in many, many others it is powerless.<br /><br /><br /><i>If the principle of falsifiability is not something you're willing to concede</i><br /><br />YOU were the one who set it up as one of your standards for truth. I agree it's generally useful, but it has its limitations. I just want you to acknowledge the obvious about it.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-19474407802017845392009-11-25T09:36:32.930-07:002009-11-25T09:36:32.930-07:00Hi Rhology,
...USUALLY a position like theistic e...Hi Rhology,<br /><br /><i>...USUALLY a position like theistic evolution means that the authority and inerrancy of Scripture suffer...</i><br /><br />She'd probably say that she believes in the authority and inerrancy of the bible, but that she interprets some parts of the bible to be figurative whereas others interpret it literally, such as the 6-day creation.<br /><br />1) For CD to be falsifiED, there would have to be empirical evidence that is incompatible with what the theory predicts. I know of no such evidence. Please provide some. Evidence consistent with Intelligent Design does not automatically falsify CD, because it's possible for the evidence to be compatible with both. <br /><br />2) Agreed.<br />3) Agreed, I think.<br /> <br />4) I wasn't talking about the falsifiability of Christianity, theism, or the inerrancy of the bible. I was talking about the falsifiability of Intelligent Design. If I concede the truth of Christianity, I still don't know if God created life in a continuous tree (common descent) or if he did it by creating organisms in their present forms at various times in the past. If God used CD, then this hypothesis is falsifiable because there is a great amount of hypothetical evidence that would be inconsistent with it. For example, if a bat and a bird shared an ERV, but that ERV wasn't found in humans, then common descent is wrong. I can't think of a similar kind of experiment that would disprove the series-of-miracles explanation. I can imagine versions of Intelligent Design that would make sufficiently specific claims to be falsifiable by evidence, but the vague versions presented thus far cannot be falsified.<br /><br />I'm not up for defending falsifiability. If the principle of falsifiability is not something you're willing to concede, then feel free to run victory laps around me. You have vanquished me! If, on the other hand, you recognize the value of falsifiability (whether or not you think an atheist can defend it), then we can concede that point and start talking about evidence and rival theories.LearningIsFunhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNCDm-4tiQnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-49145624040851451682009-11-25T06:57:10.521-07:002009-11-25T06:57:10.521-07:00LiF,
Wow, very interesting about your friend. An...LiF,<br /><br />Wow, very interesting about your friend. And don't get me wrong, I'd agree with what you said about the "umbrella"; just b/c of that I don't know anyone who'd say she's a heretic or anythg. Unfortunately, it's my experience that USUALLY a position like theistic evolution means that the authority and inerrancy of Scripture suffer at the hands of the person's (unnecessary and wrongheaded) compromise with the scientific fads of the day. Hopefully that's not the case with her.<br /><br /><br /><i>In response to my evidence of the falsifiable theory of common descent, you present an unfalsifiable hypothesis that is also consistent with the evidence.</i><br /><br />1) Surely you mean falsifiED theory of CD. There's almost no evidence for it, and plenty against. In fact, <a href="http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/02/guest-blogger-evidence-for-evolution-is.html" rel="nofollow">pretty much any experiment you run is evidence for intelligent design</a>, which is a big problem for you.<br />2) Plenty of things are true that are unfalsifiable, like the laws of logic.<br />3) The principle of falsifiability is itself unfalsifiable. <br />4) And my position is plenty falsifiable. Find the body of Christ. Provide a self-consistent and rational account for reason and intelligibility, given atheism. Prove a contradiction in the Bible that's a real one. Etc.<br /><br /><br /><i>your worldview results in solipsism.</i><br /><br />Mine? Haha, please. My worldview is based on the promises of God who lives and speaks. What's yours based on? What you think your senses are telling you? "Evidence"? Fine, give me evidence you're not a brain in a vat. THAT'S solipsism. Believe me, you don't want to go there.<br /><br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-77597097110385813272009-11-24T16:23:07.210-07:002009-11-24T16:23:07.210-07:00Hi Rhology,
I have a close friend who is a member...Hi Rhology,<br /><br />I have a close friend who is a member of the CRC and starting as a professor at Calvin College in the spring. She's also the person I get most of my info on evolutionary phylogenetics from. It appears that Calvinism is a large enough umbrella to include a theistic evolutionist like her and a YEC like you.<br /><br />In response to my evidence of the falsifiable theory of common descent, you present an unfalsifiable hypothesis that is also consistent with the evidence. Presenting more consistent evidence to support my case would be futile. Instead, I would have to convince you of the importance of falsifiability.<br /><br />I could attempt to defend my epistemology and maybe even try to demonstrate that your worldview results in solipsism. But it has been a while since I've had the patience for navel gazing conversations like that. If you present a falsifiable alternative to common descent, then we can talk about the compatibility of evidence, but otherwise, that conversation is pointless. Sorry if I'm disappointing you.<br /><br />Cheers.LearningIsFunhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uNCDm-4tiQnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3004069192536581829.post-19221711447566282982009-11-23T09:14:20.403-07:002009-11-23T09:14:20.403-07:00Hi LiF,
Yes, there are alot of ppl out there. I&...Hi LiF,<br /><br />Yes, there are alot of ppl out there. I'm a YEC, Calvinist Baptist, inerrantist. Hope that helps you know where I'm coming from!<br /><br />You correctly characterise my argument but have not dealt with my rebuttals of your critiques thereof. I'll be waiting whenever you decide to do so.<br />If you think our epistem divide is great, maybe you could provide an epistem justification of your view, whatever it is. How do you know what is true and how do you know you can access it?<br /><br />Peace,<br />RhologyRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.com