Foundational Falshoods of Creationism

[Chinook]

On what basis do you say the "prime mover would probably be sentient"? How do you know?

I argued that for there to really be a causeless effect, it would probably need to be the result of sentience. I mean sentience in the ideal sense (the sense which we like to think of ourselves having), not in our sense where it's just an effect. As you said, wind does not choose to blow dust. It just does due to it being an effect of temperature differences, and so on. The closest thing we see to uncaused effects are the decisions made by sentient creatures.

I say "probably," because I'm not asserting it to be an inevitability. I'm willing to accept being wrong readily as soon as I see why I would be. I don't know. I also don't believe it to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. But that's the working theory I'm running with until/unless it runs aground.

[Avante]

theory in the realm of science is different than theory in the colloquial sense.

in everyday life, we see gravity as fact. in science, gravity is theory.

The theory of gravity, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do I really need to send you to a ton of places totally ripping the ..theory..of evolution to shreds?

[silverblk mystix]

Pretty much says it all.
Probably the only time in his pathetic life he ever told the absolute truth, about himself, his situation, and his existence.

And it bit him in the ass and destroyed his trolling forever - no one can ever take him seriously again.

[spurraider21]

Oh really, then you do not believe in science?

yes. that is different than having faith though

[Avante]

We used to take salt tablets at football practice, so what happened?

Why hasn't anyone typed.....All those things science got wrong...?

[spurraider21]

The theory of gravity, hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

why is that funny?

[xmas1997]

i'm not avoiding any issue. you keep telling me science has no evidence or proof, when science is entirely based on evidence and observation. you keep trying to mash a square peg into a round hole

That is an obvious ad hominem statement.
I never said any of that about "science".
Go reread the posts if you do not believe me.
Or I can quote them next time to prove it to you.

I SAID IT ABOUT YOU, not science.
Get it right.

[Chinook]

science and faith are unrelated. science fundamentally requires evidence and observation, whereas faith by definition does not deal with evidence in the slightest

I think that's inaccurate and is a view that actually damages the good work science does. Science is faith-based, because it is ultimately unprovable. Science deals with beliefs, which is why it can change. Mathematical relations don't change; only our understanding of them do. So math isn't faith-based. Logical principles aren't faith-based. Science is.

But not all faith is equally well-founded. That's why we set up empiricist conventions through which we can decide which things we should take on faith and which things we shouldn't. Even if that wasn't true, you probably don't test everything you believe to be true yourself. So you certainly take at least some things on faith.

[spurraider21]

That is an obvious ad hominem statement.

ad hominum means im arguing to appeal to emotion rather than reason. i have done no such thing

I never said any of that about "science".
Go reread the posts if you do not believe me.
Or I can quote them next time to prove it to you.

I SAID IT ABOUT YOU, not science.
Get it right.

any scientific equation is verifiable. any scientific observation is verifiable. all experimental methods are divulged to the final letter. there isn't any secrecy. the evidence is there to see for anybody who is interested.

when maxwell's equations came about, its not as though clark maxwell said "hey i have some equations about electronics and magnetism. they're correct, just trust me."
no. everything in science is peer reviewed and goes through harsh skepticism, investigation, and criticism before being accepted

[spurraider21]

I think that's inaccurate and is a view that actually damages the good work science does. Science is faith-based, because it is ultimately unprovable. Science deals with beliefs, which is why it can change. Mathematical relations don't change; only our understanding of them do. So math isn't faith-based. Logical principles aren't faith-based. Science is.

But not all faith is equally well-founded. That's why we set up empiricist conventions through which we can decide which things we should take on faith and which things we shouldn't. Even if that wasn't true, you probably don't test everything you believe to be true yourself. So you certainly take at least some things on faith.

faith implies the belief of something without evidence. this does not hold true for what is considered to be scientific.

belief in something because evidence suggests it is very different than faith. this is not to say everything that science has ever "found" has been proven too be true and accurate. you could have plenty of evidence and still be wrong. but evidence/observation is a requisite for science, not an option. this is why i do not confuse it with faith

[Chinook]

faith implies the belief of something without evidence. this does not hold true for what is considered to be scientific.

Where did you get that implication from? That's like saying atheists believe there is not possibility that a god can exist. And anyway, "evidence" itself is murky. According to Xmas, he has a ton of internal evidence to hold his theistic belief.

[xmas1997]

yes. that is different than having faith though

No, it isn't.
What proof do YOU have, what evidence do YOU have.

YOU do not have any? No. But science does.
But You are not science. You are you, and science is science.

So you are dependent on what you believe of what science is telling you, yet you possess no evidence other than someone else' word.
You don't do any experiments, you don't posit theories, you don't do any of the work involved at all except for "listening" to someone else or "reading about" someone else' work.
So you are taking their word for things and relying on faith they are right.

[spurraider21]

Where did you get that implication from? That's like saying atheists believe there is not possibility that a god can exist. And anyway, "evidence" itself is murky. According to Xmas, he has a ton of internal evidence to hold his theistic belief.

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It can also be defined as belief that is not based on proof

i guess i'm just going with the latter part

[spurraider21]

No, it isn't.
What proof do YOU have, what evidence do YOU have.

YOU do not have any? No. But science does.
But You are not science. You are you, and science is science.

So you are dependent on what you believe of what science is telling you, yet you possess no evidence other than someone else' word.
You don't do any experiments, you don't posit theories, you don't do any of the work involved at all except for "listening" to someone else or "reading about" someone else' work.
So you are taking their word for things and relying on faith they are right.

i can look at the fossil records. i can look at the derivations that led to such equations/formulas. although pretty menial, i have conducted experiments in labs that reflect or verify scientific teachings.

[Blake]

I enjoyed reading Hume when I was in school. A lot of the critique I'm giving to your understanding of logic comes from the work he and other empiricists did. I'm curious to see exactly what critique he gave to my belief. I don't want to answer generically when he may have actually said something interesting.

Basics of what he said about it are on wikipedia, iirc.

I'll post later

[Chinook]

No, it isn't.
What proof do YOU have, what evidence do YOU have.

YOU do not have any? No. But science does.
But You are not science. You are you, and science is science.

So you are dependent on what you believe of what science is telling you, yet you possess no evidence other than someone else' word.
You don't do any experiments, you don't posit theories, you don't do any of the work involved at all except for "listening" to someone else or "reading about" someone else' work.
So you are taking their word for things and relying on faith they are right.

I get where you're coming from (besides anthropomorphizing science) . Epistemology is a hard thing for folks to grasp. People like thinking they know things, when really, we take almost everything on faith, both classically and directly. There's very little ironclad in all this, which is why anyone professing their beliefs to be absolute truth lacks perspective.

[xmas1997]

faith implies the belief of something without evidence. this does not hold true for what is considered to be scientific.

belief in something because evidence suggests it is very different than faith. this is not to say everything that science has ever "found" has been proven too be true and accurate. you could have plenty of evidence and still be wrong. but evidence/observation is a requisite for science, not an option. this is why i do not confuse it with faith

No one here is confusing science with faith.
They are separate issues and subjects.

I am saying that YOU have faith. And that "faith" is in science, or faith in someone who taught you science.

[Chinook]

Basics of what he said about it are on wikipedia, iirc.

I'll post later

Okay. What I loved about Hume in school was that his writings where a lot less ornate than his predecessors. It was much easier to understand what he wrote than Descartes or Locke. Looking forward to seeing more of his work.

[xmas1997]

I get where you're coming from (besides anthropomorphizing science) . Epistemology is a hard thing for folks to grasp. People like thinking they know things, when really, we take almost everything on faith, both classically and directly. There's very little ironclad in all this, which is why anyone professing their beliefs to be absolute truth lacks perspective.

Thanks.

[Blake]

I think that's inaccurate and is a view that actually damages the good work science does. Science is faith-based, because it is ultimately unprovable. Science deals with beliefs, which is why it can change. Mathematical relations don't change; only our understanding of them do. So math isn't faith-based. Logical principles aren't faith-based. Science is.

But not all faith is equally well-founded. That's why we set up empiricist conventions through which we can decide which things we should take on faith and which things we shouldn't. Even if that wasn't true, you probably don't test everything you believe to be true yourself. So you certainly take at least some things on faith.

It's not illogical to hold that type of faith in science.

It is illogical to have faith in something completely unobservable or untestable.

[Avante]

why is that funny?

It's become the Law of Gravity.

I cannot believe all the totally..DUH!...I see here. . look at how things have changed in the last 100 years. Yet, a 100 years ago they thought they knew, hahaha!!!!!!!! As we can see, no they didn't.

[spurraider21]

belief and faith are different things, particularly with the definition of faith that i use

[xmas1997]

belief and faith are different things, particularly with the definition of faith that i use

How so

[Avante]

belief and faith are different things, particularly with the definition of faith that i use

I pity those with in faith in anything, why would anyone want to live like that?

[spurraider21]

It's become the Law of Gravity.

i cant discuss science with somebody who doesn't understand it