Science welcomes criticism as long as you follow the rules of academic integrity.
I noticed you changed the subject from ‘scientists’ to ‘science’ as an attempt to divert the force of my argument.
Also, I suppose you are aware of the fact that ‘scientists’ are not immune to the criticism of their peers. Nevertheless, science is nothing more than an abstract term attached to what we recognize as knowledge. Science has no opinion. But, scientists do have an opinion which is called “science”.
Why do so many people reference ‘Science’ as though it is some form of entity that exists independently from people?
The complicated answer is that they don't arrive at conclusions that contradict evolution unless they use shoddy experimental methods, create a strawman of evolution and contradict that, or violate the basic standards of academic integrity. Then once they are caught, they are as expected ridiculed for being unable to keep their personal prejudices out of their research. They then whine and complain to news outlets who edit out the inconvenient parts of the story (the parts where the scientist lied in their research, for example) and publish the information in the front pages of creationist propaganda mills.
So who is correct?
The exiled scientist can use every premise you named as a valid argument to justify the results of his experiment. How do “you” know he is wrong without examining his hypothesis and the test of the same?
(The method is scientific until the consensus of scientists decide what is or is not valid according to what is accepted at that time. After all, if scientists are determining the rules of “academic integrity” (integrity is meaningless, the Mafia too relies upon the sanctity of ‘integrity’), it stands to reason they too determine what fulfills their criteria. This is unavoidable.
Now back to the first question: How do you know the truth or falsity of their claims without knowing their hypothesis and the necessary experiments to test the same?
Your rebuttal blurs the line of a genetic fallacy.
However you must therefore be able to provide a complete description of god (who he is, what he is made of, how he got here, how he can do what he does, a picture, a biography, etc.). It's not enough to simply say "He made the universe!"
Okay, because you cannot provide a complete description of your Grandpa of 10,000 years ago, I will not accept your assertion he existed. Hell, a complete description is not falsifiable. It must not be…
Falsifiable: a trick of the mind the most people fall victim to.
(I suppose you are toying with me. :)
From your argument you seem to imply that there are two extremes, and each is incorrect, whereas you in the middle are the sane one.
From what did I imply I am sane when they are not?
While there are certainly cases in politics and other fields in which the middle ground is the best option merely assuming this to always be the case without looking at the argument itself is obviously a flawed argument, especially when it comes to matters of science. We wouldn't suppose that it is reasonable to assume that the earth is half flat and half spherical would we? Or that the center of the solar system lies somewhere between the sun and the earth? Of course not.
I did not provide an argument that creates a middle term for each theory.
Creationism is true to fact or it is not.
Evolution is true to fact or it is not.
I affirm that both are not true to fact. This is not a middle ground argument. I am not asserting that each theory is particularly both true and false. Furthermore I did not establish a dichotomy of either theory; this is rather an application of the ‘law of the excluded middle term’.
You claim that we have not "proven" evolution, and when I hear claims like this I think of a certain quote:
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. -Stephen Jay Gould (US author, naturalist, paleontologist, & popularizer of science (1941 - 2002))
I am in the process of systematically responding to your rebuttal. However, that quote has caused me to pause that process and digress, temporarily, with a rebuttal of Mr. Gould’s assertion and analogy.
But, before I do, I will give you the first opportunity to submit a brief analysis of the same; after which I will also submit an analysis. And having concluded our discussion of this matter, I will then resume my initial intent.
One small compound requirement:
The tattoos need to be in English and Glow-in-the-dark with L.E.D. technology.
(I am greatly enraged that your proposal implies you want blind-people to contract an incurable disease or diseases from sex. This is discrimination! Should not the tattoo be in brail (however you spell it) as well?)
SARCASM! Intended only for entertainment value!
Fondler's and peeper's discretion is advised.
I don't find anything particularly holy about the theory of evolution, but I do understand its significance.
There is nothing wrong with the term ‘holy’ as a modifier. We frequently use the term ‘holiday’ when referencing days of significance. Holiday is immediately derived from ‘holy’+day. Most college level dictionaries evidence that derivation. The term ‘holy’ connotes a meaning of importance and significance within a class of mostly, insignificant properties.
Holy Book
Holy Day
Holy Man
Holy Cow
Holy Theory
Holy Birth
Holy Shit
Albeit, I can understand why one would refuse to use it as a modifier.
Aside from being supported by incredible amounts of evidence, and having been observed in nature, our understanding of evolution is key to medical research. This is the main reason I am upset when people try to claim that their 2,000 year old religious texts are more accurate than scientific inquiry: they are actually impeding the development of modern medicine.
I do not doubt you are convinced of the application of evolutionary theory in the advancement of medical knowledge. In and of itself, your view unto that end is commendable.
But, I think modern-day medical advancement is a beneficial consequence of scientific research to prove the theory of evolution. Or stated another way: Scientists have grossly failed to support the theory of evolution, while at the same time having successfully learned more about animal biology than had they if they were not trying to prove something.
On those grounds, I can agree to an extent with your contention.
Think of it like this: The scientific pursuit to prove something, which has yet to be proven (to me at least), has been more beneficial to medical advancement than achieving the goal of the pursuit.
May they, the scientists, continue their pursuit of the unachievable so that we may endlessly benefit from the efforts of their pursuit.
(Maybe the creationists have kept the evolutionists from resting upon their laurels.)
Its not that they reference some other man's knowledge as a justification for their beliefs, its that they reference demonstrable, repeatable, valid data/evidence uncovered by some other men, and verified by many other men doing experiments, and which is open for anyone to verify.
…and which is open for anyone to verify.
The sheeple don’t verify anything but talking points. However if they were to evaluate the evidence and arrive at a contradictory conclusion, they would be derided by their peers and authorities (scientific or theological). And by virtue of the fact that most people strive to be a member of something that is considered “intelligent” they simply keep their mouths shut and their minds prostrated. Consequently, that is why most of them appeal to the authority of another’s knowledge as the chief justification for their beliefs.
Think of it like this: they don’t verify the evidence for a justification of why they believe what they believe, but they certainly believe the authorities are to be believed.
But in contrast there are some among us who are not sheeple. Albeit, are you aware of what happens to a scientist in the field of evolutionary biology who arrives at a conclusion which contradicts the theory of evolution? Are you also aware of what happens to a pastor who arrives at a conclusion that contradicts the orthodoxy of the sect of Christianity he was ordained to minister?
Answer: Their funding is pulled because their conclusions do not conform to, or confirm, the conclusions for which they were hired and appointed.
Theologians don't have demonstrable, repeatable and sound evidence for god; they might have a few decent trys at logical arguments(which most if not all can be shown as bad) All they have is emotion and social forces to propagate their views.
What makes you think you know what is necessary as evidence of God’s existence? Logically, you must know what is evidence of god’s existence in order to deny the attribute of existence of that subject.
The denial of God’s existence must logically be based upon some sort of knowledge of what is denied.
Here is an example which expresses the same problem.
Person ‘A’ asserts that person ‘D’ does not exist.
When asked about the identity of person D, person A replies: “Sir, I don’t know the identity of person D, but I am convinced if person D exists I would know its identity. And hence because I do not know its identity, that person cannot exist.”
When asked another question, person A replies: “I am the only person who can prove that I exist. After all, is it not absurd to think that the proof of my existence is subject to someone who is not me? Furthermore, I have no burden to prove to anyone I exist, I simply exist regardless of what others do or don’t know about me. But, if I introduce myself to someone they should know I exist.”
Most Christians refer to their priests and pastors as figures of authority, (a biased authority at that) and more often than not they believe what they believe because they believe the figure of authority is THE authority for their belief.
This is no different than scientists as shepherds of sheep.
After all, if the sheep are so knowledgeable of the sciences of their beliefs, which are taught by scientists, they would stop referencing some other man’s knowledge as a justification for their beliefs.
Consider:
God exists because the consensus of theologians declares he does; although the sheep have not examined enough evidence to justify authoritative knowledge.
Anthropogenic global warming is a fact because the scientific consensus declares it is; although the sheep have not examined enough evidence to justify authoritative knowledge.
You will notice I defend neither camp. But, I am certainly entertained by the proponents of both camps rushing to defend their “holy cows”. (I like to piss on the ideas of both camps when it leads to a pissing contest betwixt the evolutionists and creationists.)
After all, most people can’t discern the self-evident difference betwixt demonstrating the validity of an inference and the inference of validity.
Example:
Evidence, proof and validity are inferential claims: they are not truths by virtue of claiming those inferences are facts. True, it is a fact they claim as truth, proof, validity, or evidence many things, but all of those assertions are facts; but those facts do not evidence anything more than an assertion which they intend to be understood as true.
They infer something is evidence. They infer that that evidence is valid. They infer that their inference is proof.
But as of now, I have yet to see either camp demonstrate the validity of their inferences.
(Note: there are some who realize the inherent fallibility of their view, consequently, that is why neither camp refuses to stop trying to prove their claims of truth.)
When the ratio (at CD) of evolutionists to creationists swings in favor of creationists, I will mock their Bullshit too. Provided of course they are equally zealous supporters and defenders of their “holy cow” with an equal zeal to ridicule their opponents.
Whoever thought that humans were 'intelligent'?
That is why I think that question is un-intelligent. :)
But, if it is an intelligent question then I concede that at least one human is intelligent. But if I am not the one, intelligent human then my un-intelligence disqualifies me from understanding the question so I can then answer it.
You will notice I defend neither camp. But, I am certainly entertained by the proponents of both camps rushing to defend their “holy cows”. (I like to piss on the ideas of both camps when it leads to a pissing contest betwixt the evolutionists and creationists.)
After all, most people can’t discern the self-evident difference betwixt demonstrating the validity of an inference and the inference of validity.
Example:
Evidence, proof and validity are inferential claims: they are not truths by virtue of claiming those inferences are facts. True, it is a fact they claim as truth, proof, validity, or evidence many things, but all of those assertions are facts; but those facts do not evidence anything more than an assertion which they intend to be understood as true.
They infer something is evidence. They infer that that evidence is valid. They infer that their inference is proof.
But as of now, I have yet to see either camp demonstrate the validity of their inferences.
(Note: there are some who realize the inherent fallibility of their view, consequently, that is why neither camp refuses to stop trying to prove their claims of truth.)
When the ratio (at CD) of evolutionists to creationists swings in favor of creationists, I will mock their Bullshit too. Provided of course they are equally zealous supporters and defenders of their “holy cow” with an equal zeal to ridicule their opponents.
You will notice I defend neither camp. But, I am certainly entertained by the proponents of both camps rushing to defend their “holy cows”. (I like to piss on the ideas of both camps when it leads to a pissing contest betwixt the evolutionists and creationists.)
After all, most people can’t discern the self-evident difference betwixt demonstrating the validity of an inference and the inference of validity.
Example:
Evidence, proof and validity are inferential claims: they are not truths by virtue of claiming those inferences are facts. True, it is a fact they claim as truth, proof, validity, or evidence many things, but all of those assertions are facts; albeit those facts do not evidence anything more than an assertion which they intend to be accepted as true.
They infer something is evidence. They infer that that evidence is valid. They infer that their inference is proof.
But as of now, I have yet to see either camp demonstrate the validity of their inferences.
(Note: there are some who realize the inherent fallibility of their view, consequently, that is why neither camp refuses to stop trying to prove their claims of truth.)
When the ratio (at CD) of evolutionists to creationists swings in favor of creationists, I will mock their Bullshit too. Provided of course they are equally zealous supporters and defenders of their “holy cow” with an equal zeal to ridicule their opponents.
So my question is, are you aware of this and trying to find a way to reason out of this conclusion?
I am aware of all of that and then some. However what you consider to be a prolonged debate would amount to about a two-minute exchange vis-a vis us.
But in answer to your question, I provide the following.
I can presume to foreknow the outcome of a debate, and likewise you can as well. Yet, because you took upon yourself the task of attempting to refute my stance it must mean that you can provide a refuting argument. This must also mean that you are cognizant of the underlying premises of the conclusion, ‘God is not fictional’, or any co-related proposition. Furthermore, it must also mean you understand that the premises of both of our views are the consequents of our Epistemological viewpoints.
Consequently, I am attempting to compel you to establish an argument that allows me to reason from your premises that your conclusion is valid. (Consider this debate as an attempt on my part to arrive at conclusions that necessarily follow from their premises and not an attempt to accept our conclusions at face value for the sake of avoiding a genuine, syllogistic argument which is then debatable.)
No knowledge of reality is a priori?
That's one way of looking at it. I always thought of a priori as reasoning based on logic or theory with no regard for its related application in the real world (because as we know, sometimes flukes happen that inexplicably find themselves to violate previously pure groupings and standards).
While not dismissing your reply which immediately preceded the above reply, I'll expedite this debate by addressing the current response to the above proposition.(I’ll address it if the following reply doesn’t adequately imply an alternative view.)
All knowledge, simplistically, is either a priori justified or a posteriori justified.
Example:
The proposition, “No knowledge of reality is a priori.” is a priori justified. It is a belief that is knowledge as the result of deductive knowledge and not experience. If it were by experience there would exist observable, tangible evidence that warrants an a posteriori justification.
As an empiricist, do you agree that the proposition is false because of contradictory a priori justification and not a posteriori justification ( meaning that “some knowledge of reality is a priori)?
Consider this:
Craig Venter and his team have built the genome of a bacterium from scratch and incorporated it into a cell to make what they call the world's first synthetic life form
If the "peer review process" confirms this claim, then it can also be validly argued therefrom that:
The creation of life is the result of an intelligent creator/s! The creationist's view is that God took a bunch of dust and created "man" thereby. It would seem as though science has finally confirmed the belief of creationists, while at the same time denying the base premise of evolutionists.
Am I correct? Yes! That is why we shall later see that the consensus of scientific opinion denies the current conclusion of Craig Venter’s experiment. I could drive this into the ground, but I think Craig’s claim is obviously a curse instead of a blessing for evolution.
(If scientists successfully create “life”, non-synthetic or synthetic, it only evidences that intelligent design is a valid position.)
Thanks for answering my question when others avoided it. We can now debate the underlying epistemological views which support our contradictory propositions.
Rationalism versus Empiricism when the subject is God
But before I commence I must ask one question in order to be fair in our discourse.
No knowledge of reality is a priori?
Working strictly from your assertion, “Burden of Proof dictates that what is asserted is false until proven true.”, I present the following.
…,but it doesn't change the fact that Burden of Proof dictates that what is asserted is false until proven true. God is a positive claim without any proof.
In all the years of human civilisation (that's over 9000), there hasn't been written, spoken, or found one bit of evidence that can pass scientific or academic scrutiny and yet affirm god's existence. In light of this lack of evidence, the reasonable, sceptical position is "negative."
(You will note that this argument contains your words as posted in this debate. Consequently I will use those words to evidence your burden.)
Exhibit A
“In all the years of human civilisation (that's over 9000), there hasn't been written, spoken, or found one bit of evidence (that can pass scientific or academic scrutiny) and yet affirm god's existence.”
Therefore by reason of your assertion, “Burden of Proof dictates that what is asserted is false until proven true.”, I will suppose it is false; for you have not proven that all of those types of evidences that were scrutinized have failed to pass scientific or academic examination. (I can’t assume the assertion is true without supporting evidence.)
(Go ahead and also provide supporting evidence that the scrutiny of scientists and academicians is consistent throughout 9,000+ years of human civilization.)
(Please forego the term “God” is itself a positive affirmation. It is only a subject with disputed attributes. Consequently that is why your assertion that “God does not exist” is comprehensible.)
To be continued.......................................................
.......................................
Tune in later for additional entertainment.
(Unless of course this debate is interupted by an emergency refutation.)
Disputations 1:1 (Lawn-man’s version of the bible): Come now and let us reason together saith the Lawnman.
I assume we agree on this: Both of us can provide valid argumentation in support of our pre-suppositions of the truth or falsity of God’s existence. Moreover, some of the justifications of both can be rooted in the bible itself.
I have no problem with that. After all, whether we presuppose the existence or non-existence of God, any ‘source’ of evidence that supports either view is acceptable when its logically valid, despite whether it is true or false. Now, having prefaced our rebuttals by expressing our mutual respect, I begin.
#1 The bible does not support the inference that ‘Adam’ is the first human. (Human is adequate.)
But, let’s suppose that it does, and consequently all humans are the progeny of the first human whose name is Adam. Let’s compare it with the scriptures. I Corinthians:
15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
According to the translated writing, which is alleged as the words of the Apostle Paul, we cannot infer that Paul understood the name “Adam” to strictly denote human or man; although “Adam” is the first man. However, we can validly infer that he recognized two “Adams”, no more than two and no fewer than two. This is evidenced by verse 15:45…first man Adam…, the last Adam...
Paul does not modify the term ‘Adam’ with ‘man’ in the term “the last Adam” in verse 45, but he does in verse 47 by the qualification of “the second man”. Inferentially, we understand he speaks of the first man Adam and the second man Adam.
Therefore the second man is both the last man and the last Adam; the first man is the first Adam.
Deduction: If the Lord (Jesus, simplified) is both “the last Adam” and “the last man” and they both are the second of only two, then no male of the human race since and before Jesus, excluding the first Adam, is either a “man” or “Adam”.
Clearly, our definition of “man” is not consistent with Paul’s understanding of what the scriptures evidence by the terms ‘man’ and ’Adam’.
(I am avoiding the issue of the original terms of the translated Bible. However, if I were to address the translation issue, it would evidence that the translators took license to rewrite the accepted historical scriptures of the Hebrews in the English version of the bible by blatant abuses of logical inference.)
Think of it this way:
If 1 is 1, then the translators infer that 1 is 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16 and whatsoever promotes the god of their imagination, especially when the truth is in conflict with self-deification.
(If you own a Strong’s concordance of the Bible you can immediately confirm the truth of my claim. Research the reference number that is frequently, but not universally attached to the term ‘Church’. Once you see the ‘license of the translators’ you will find many other licenses that are attached to all the key terms of biblical thought.)
Also, you can study/know about something and never believe it; you can know it well and refute it.
Bingo!
It should be inferred, according to his argument, that any man who chooses to study religion as a subject has opened the door. Furthermore, the act of opening the door is the result of "an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind".
So, in essence, if you are guilty of studying religion for whatever purpose, the only reason you have opened the door is because of "an underdeveloped or emotionally impaired mind".
You will note the requirement, "it takes".
(I have no more to contribute. I have justified my contradictory position.)
And remember in that other debate where I said your post was pure gibberish it was impossible to respond to? Well:
That explains a lot; I now understand what it is I am dealing with. Consequently, since you do this concerning something that is physically verifiable, I now know why your posts evidence clumsy argumentation concerning a metaphysical subject.
In which “other” debate did you affirm “my post is pure gibberish”?
Where is the evidence? You should already be aware of what it is you are looking for in order to know you have found evidence.
(I suspect you will respond with something similar to: “the absence of evidence is evidence of existence”.)
As for the balance of your first and last post in this debate with me, it is all beside the point. Not once have you posted a reply that evidenced you are debating a metaphysical question. Your posts belong in the realm of the physical and not the metaphysical. Otherwise you would not continue to reference your false analogy of the “meteor crater”. And furthermore you would not continue to re-state the same irrelevant analogy.
Did you assume that the concept of God is somehow affirmed or denied by some sort of physical evidence or the lack thereof?
Albeit, if you re-examine my posts wherein I request evidence for your inference, you will find I asked for evidence and not physical evidence.
A metaphysical argument would satisfy that request!
Conclusion: Your posts are purely gibberish because they evidence ignorance of the nature of the question with bold-faced irrelevance. Consequently, that is why my efforts to correct your misguided and irrelevant posts seem to be gibberish to you.
When homosexuals or heterosexuals marry one another, they by faith believe their spouse will remain faithful without any evidence supporting that belief. This is the premise of marriage.
Without faith, marriage is irrational. But, because of faith, marriage is rational. Ergo, faith is not wrong because marriage as a consequence is right.
(I am a little un-sober, let’s also see if I am a little un-intelligent thereby; counter arguments are welcome.)
Debate idea:
Do you ever wonder if your debating opponent is on dope or drunk?
Damn, long time no presence!
I have often entertained the notion that the majority of materials of the pyramids are the result of todays equivalent of concrete.
Albeit, I do have a tendency to allow questions like this to remain unanswered in my mind. After all, I do enjoy speculative thinking for the sake of speculation. Call this my "The truth is out there" moment.
If I am the Chief, yes. I can differentiate betwixt necesssary abuse and blatant,unnecessary insult.
Furthermore, I am for spanking! But I also think it is prudent to recognize the process of correction even when it means appropriate ad-hominem.
