Consciousness with Josh from Theologyweb

[spongebob]

I think my point was made,that metaphysical positions are unavoidable, yet by definition, that means something more then the "Scientific Realm" exists. Otherwise there is no room for "metaphysical" discussion.

Tony, this is truly a non sequitur. Can we talk about the Loch Ness Monster without it having to exist? Just because I discuss metaphysical questions does not imply validity to mine, yours, or anyone else's spiritual worldview.

Yet this in itself refutes naturalism, a world view that you have put your faith upon. Atheist seem to always treat the philosophical view of theism as some kind of silly notion equal to the eater bunny, and they respond with the same haughty interaction, yet they are oblivious to their own faith commitments that were learned, studied and embraced. "The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God". It seems the only one that believes in the "easter bunny" is the one that holds to the illogical, and commits with blind faith to the absolutist, metaphysical position of atheism.

Tony, please describe to me what you see as my, or a general atheistic "faith" system that we have embraced. I suspect you are misrepresenting something that is, in fact, nothing to do with religious faith.

I have never attacked science, talk about a straw man!

So, what do you call fallacious arguments against consensus science? I call that an attack on science. What else could it be? "Scinece" is determined by scientists, the people who actually do the "science". So, no straw man here. You attack science and this results in you being shown how you are dead wrong.

I attack naturalism.

Which is nothing but a philosophical extension of lack of faith in superstitions and the supernatural. You can attack this worldview if you like, but you cannot demonstrate that it is invalid.

Science is a tool that we both have to make our case. It is a great tool but it is only one, there is philosophy, logic, language, morals, and ethics, all things that must obtain prior to doing science and to even have this discussion. Notice these things are not physical and do not fall under the realm of science. Just because I don't use a hammer to brush my teeth, doesn't mean I am against hammers. Science is a tool that reveals truth. So before calling me foolish, make sure you at least understand my position please.

No, I don't understand your position on science. You don't seem to comprehend what it is or where is differs from supernaturalism. If I want to learn the age of the earth, how does philosophy help? How does language help? How do morals or ethics help? Logic does help, but it is only a construct for evaluating facts. So, you seem confused, Tony. Would I use "science" to determine if god exists? No. Is there any other "tool" that can definitively demonstrate that god exists? No.

Enjoy your time on earth!

[tonyenglish7]

[quote="spongebob]
No, I don't understand your position on science. You don't seem to comprehend what it is or where is differs from supernaturalism. If I want to learn the age of the earth, how does philosophy help? How does language help? How do morals or ethics help? Logic does help, but it is only a construct for evaluating facts. So, you seem confused, Tony. Would I use "science" to determine if god exists? No. Is there any other "tool" that can definitively demonstrate that god exists? No.

Enjoy your time on earth![/quote="spongebob]

To find out the age of the earth, you first need to admit these things among other, 1) there is value in truth, admitting what the evidence suggests. This is an ethical commitment to honest reporting. 2) Numbers exist; this is a commitment to the "idea" that there are rational mathematical models that are non-physical realities. 3) We have to admit that the universe is orderly, this is a philosophical commitment, as it could be not so. 4) You admit that A cannot be Non-A in the same place and time. So, this is a non-physical reality that must be assumed and trusted before we start science. (You gave me this one and all I need is one non-physical thing to win the discussion).

So, science can bring us data, but we need to come to conclusions that are "logical", "rational", "honest" and "ordered" for them to be believable. You start with non-physical concepts before you do science, which is good, but you refuse to allow any non-physical conclusions to your naturalistic world view and are therefore very biased.

Hey, did you see that they underestimated the amount of dust in the universe and they recently re-adjusted the age of the universe from 13.7 Billion years to about 9-10 Billion. Just an interesting side bar.

Eat and drink, for tomorrow you die in your sins!

[whoosanightowl]

Eat and drink, for tomorrow you die in your sins!

Eat and drink, for tomorrow you die in your fantasy!

[darkumbra]

You completely missed the point; all of these animals do exist and should not. The sun should have killed any living thing in the desert yet lizards have complicated mechanisms to survive, fish have gills and rock cod have hard shells, none of that means anything because it begs the question. You say over time these animals developed from amino acids into proteins into dna and rna programs full of billions and trillions of units of information that further provided schemes to survive in order to pass on to the next generation these survival skills.

?? First you ask for this... and I quote: "Can you give me an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved? "

And I do... I give you several examples of animals that could NOT exist... ie. animals without the necessary survival mechanisms to exist in the environments I used as examples.

If adult fossils of the examples I gave existed - they would do two things simultaneously - disprove Evolution AND prove ID.

Then you respond with examples that DO exist... how do these serve to either a) erode my argument? or b) support your argument. since they do not meet the criteria you asked for?

Are you even capable of determining what you're asking for when you ask for "an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved? " ???

At some point logic and coherency of thought has to arise in a discussion or else there is no point, and you're just wasting pixels which could be used for more useful purposes, such as pr0n.

So I have a question for you. Is English your second language? Because if it is, I'll make some allowance for the handicap.

[tonyenglish7]

Eat and drink, for tomorrow you die in your sins!

Eat and drink, for tomorrow you die in your fantasy!

That is one of the possible options. If you read the thread it started out with him saying, "have a nice day" I said, "Have a nice Eternity", he said, something like, "have a nice stay on earth" and I said, the above. Just so you have the jest of it. However, that is my motivation, to bring you out of your mistaken world view in order to get you to see that bigger questions and issues at hand like sin, judgment, truth and worship.

You and I both have committed crimes against the creator and we will be given either a fair judgment or a merciful one. God in his great love for us, provided a very expensive free optional gift of mercy, and I for one am choosing it, or rather Him. By the way, I also was an atheist so I know how this statement will come off. My prayer is that it get's through to the innermost person within you that longs for life, and that more abundantly.

[tonyenglish7]

You completely missed the point; all of these animals do exist and should not. The sun should have killed any living thing in the desert yet lizards have complicated mechanisms to survive, fish have gills and rock cod have hard shells, none of that means anything because it begs the question. You say over time these animals developed from amino acids into proteins into dna and rna programs full of billions and trillions of units of information that further provided schemes to survive in order to pass on to the next generation these survival skills.

?? First you ask for this... and I quote: "Can you give me an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved? "

And I do... I give you several examples of animals that could NOT exist... ie. animals without the necessary survival mechanisms to exist in the environments I used as examples.

If adult fossils of the examples I gave existed - they would do two things simultaneously - disprove Evolution AND prove ID.

Then you respond with examples that DO exist... how do these serve to either a) erode my argument? or b) support your argument. since they do not meet the criteria you asked for?

Are you even capable of determining what you're asking for when you ask for "an example of a being, if in existence, could not have evolved? " ???

At some point logic and coherency of thought has to arise in a discussion or else there is no point, and you're just wasting pixels which could be used for more useful purposes, such as pr0n.

So I have a question for you. Is English your second language? Because if it is, I'll make some allowance for the handicap.

Como? Dude, no, what I meant was, not that some impossible creature needs to exist, but do you have an example of some creature, (survivability notwithstanding), that if we found it, there is no theoretical means for it to have evolved. It would have some feature, some characteristic that is too complex, too many concurrent components to have mutated into existence. You are making my point with your response.

For you, anything that has a parent and can survive in the current environment must have evolved. But this lacks falsifiablity. In other words, even if the transitional steps from breathing air to breathing water are too far apart, you just assume it must have happened. But for evolution to have real scientific credibility, it should have some falsifiablity, yet it does not. Unless it is simply a metaphysical, faith based religious world view and not scientific? Si? Comprende? Bueno?

[darkumbra]

Como? Dude, no, what I meant was, not that some impossible creature needs to exist, but do you have an example of some creature, (survivability notwithstanding), that if we found it, there is no theoretical means for it to have evolved. It would have some feature, some characteristic that is too complex, too many concurrent components to have mutated into existence. You are making my point with your response.

For you, anything that has a parent and can survive in the current environment must have evolved. But this lacks falsifiablity. In other words, even if the transitional steps from breathing air to breathing water are too far apart, you just assume it must have happened. But for evolution to have real scientific credibility, it should have some falsifiablity, yet it does not. Unless it is simply a metaphysical, faith based religious world view and not scientific? Si? Comprende? Bueno?

Sure. Exceedingly easy. A fossil of a MODERN human being is found in the Pre-cambian layer. Evolution. Falsified. Dead. on. the. vine. EVERYBODY back to the drawing board.

[tonyenglish7]

Como? Dude, no, what I meant was, not that some impossible creature needs to exist, but do you have an example of some creature, (survivability notwithstanding), that if we found it, there is no theoretical means for it to have evolved. It would have some feature, some characteristic that is too complex, too many concurrent components to have mutated into existence. You are making my point with your response.

For you, anything that has a parent and can survive in the current environment must have evolved. But this lacks falsifiablity. In other words, even if the transitional steps from breathing air to breathing water are too far apart, you just assume it must have happened. But for evolution to have real scientific credibility, it should have some falsifiablity, yet it does not. Unless it is simply a metaphysical, faith based religious world view and not scientific? Si? Comprende? Bueno?

Sure. Exceedingly easy. A fossil of a MODERN human being is found in the Pre-cambian layer. Evolution. Falsified. Dead. on. the. vine. EVERYBODY back to the drawing board.

Wow, ok, one more time... I am talking about falsifiability. I would venture to say, that a human found in the pre-Cambrian layer would only make the faithful naturalist say he was wrong about "when" the evolution took place, but despite that, the question is not, is there any fossil record that would make the evolutionist change his mind? (Which I think that is even a stretch), but, is there any characteristic of any kind that theoretically could not have slowly evolved by gradual mutation as is believed by evolutionist? The scientists who are evolutional naturalists will not even look at that issue. If it is here, it must have evolved so there is no need to question the viability of the theory. It is non-falsifiable because the proof that it worked is the platypus is in existence. There is no theoretical characteristic that would cause the evolutionist to question the theory. If a bird could harden it's feathers and use rocket technology with radar, heat seeking missles and radio communication, that would just be another example of Darwinism in process...

[spongebob]

Wow, ok, one more time... I am talking about falsifiability. I would venture to say, that a human found in the pre-Cambrian layer would only make the faithful naturalist say he was wrong about "when" the evolution took place, but despite that, the question is not, is there any fossil record that would make the evolutionist change his mind? (Which I think that is even a stretch), but, is there any characteristic of any kind that theoretically could not have slowly evolved by gradual mutation as is believed by evolutionist? The scientists who are evolutional naturalists will not even look at that issue. If it is here, it must have evolved so there is no need to question the viability of the theory. It is non-falsifiable because the proof that it worked is the platypus is in existence. There is no theoretical characteristic that would cause the evolutionist to question the theory. If a bird could harden it's feathers and use rocket technology with radar, heat seeking missles and radio communication, that would just be another example of Darwinism in process...

Wow, tony. DU has answered your question in spades. He presented you with several potential creatures that could not exist within the evolutionary model. He also presented you with a human fossil that could not fit the model. You could propose any fossil out of date sequence, and it would challenge the model. Yes, scientists would try to propose ways in which such a fossil could have existed, but there are more than one single fossil to consider. It is these hundreds, or thousands, of interlinking pieces of evidence that "lock" certain creatures into a specific time frame. So, your question has been answered in spades. And, like a good Creationist, you just deny the answer and keep plugging along, blind as usual. Typical fallacious, creationist thinking.

[spongebob]

To find out the age of the earth, you first need to admit these things among other, 1) there is value in truth, admitting what the evidence suggests. This is an ethical commitment to honest reporting.

Yes, there is value in truth. Yes, you have to admit what the evidence suggests. This is what scientific integrity is all about. No problem so far.

2) Numbers exist; this is a commitment to the "idea" that there are rational mathematical models that are non-physical realities.

Tony, this just makes no sense at all. What the heck are you talking about? Are you some kind of new age mathematician?

3) We have to admit that the universe is orderly, this is a philosophical commitment, as it could be not so.

The universe is orderly, but this is not a philosophical statement. It's actually made from observation, from science. Neither religion, nor philosophy could truly determine just how orderly it is.

4) You admit that A cannot be Non-A in the same place and time. So, this is a non-physical reality that must be assumed and trusted before we start science. (You gave me this one and all I need is one non-physical thing to win the discussion).

Nonsense, Tony. You cannot claim to win anything with comments like this, as if there was a contest here to begin with. I always thought a discussion was about an exchange of information, not a contest. But then, with you, I can't tell what you are talking about most of the time. If you have any real point to make with this, please try to restate it.

So, science can bring us data, but we need to come to conclusions that are "logical", "rational", "honest" and "ordered" for them to be believable. You start with non-physical concepts before you do science, which is good, but you refuse to allow any non-physical conclusions to your naturalistic world view and are therefore very biased.

Nope, wrong again. In science we begin with a question, what causes "X" to happen? Next, we propose an answer. For it to be science, it must be something we can devise a test for, something observable. If we cannot devise a testable, observable evaluation, then we are not talking about science, but maybe philosophy.

Hey, did you see that they underestimated the amount of dust in the universe and they recently re-adjusted the age of the universe from 13.7 Billion years to about 9-10 Billion. Just an interesting side bar.

Bullshit! More on that later...

Eat, drink and be merry. Christians can only do one.

[spongebob]

Tony, don't know what creationist source you are using, but here's an article in the NYT just recently regarding the age of the universe. Still stands at around 13.7 billion years. This is based on observations from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, from NASA. This jives with data from years before. So, this is just another example of how science makes predictions, then tests the universe for the accuracy of those predictions. When they are found to be true, we conclude that our models are true. Simple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/scien ... osmos.html

[spongebob]

Wow, ok, one more time... I am talking about falsifiability.

No, Tony, you are not. You are talking about supernaturalism. When you begin to talk about falsifiability, we'll let you know. You haven't come close yet.

I would venture to say, that a human found in the pre-Cambrian layer would only make the faithful naturalist say he was wrong about "when" the evolution took place

Yes, right. It would cause scientists to say, "wait a minute, the current evolution model is wrong. We need to re-evaluate it." That would lead to more and more questions that could very well dismantle the whole model. It's all chain-linked, and because of that, breaking the right link could mean major changes in the model.

the question is not, is there any fossil record that would make the evolutionist change his mind?... but, is there any characteristic of any kind that theoretically could not have slowly evolved by gradual mutation as is believed by evolutionist?

Let's see. Superhuman strength. Invisibility. Heat vision. Mind-reading. Speaking to the dead.

The scientists who are evolutional [SIC] naturalists will not even look at that issue.

Um, look at what issue? Are you asserting that there are actually traits that you suppose could not have evolved? What are they? Why would a scientist not be interested in them? What you are proposing is preposterous.

If it is here, it must have evolved so there is no need to question the viability of the theory.

What kind of drek is this? The model has been challenged and tested and questioned for 150 years!@!!@#!@#!@ It's the single most tested theory in humankind! What do you mean it's validity hasn't been tested?

It is non-falsifiable because the proof that it worked is the platypus is in existence.

Huh? Makes absolutely no sense, Tony. Please try to make some sense. The Platypus is actually very, very, very, very good evidence of evolution. It is a significant missing link!

There is no theoretical characteristic that would cause the evolutionist to question the theory.

You simply cannot say this, Tony. This is pure speculation. Is there any possible theoretical characteristic that would cause you to question the existence of god? I submit there is not.

If a bird could harden it's feathers and use rocket technology with radar, heat seeking missles and radio communication, that would just be another example of Darwinism in process...

God, what a bunch of moronic crap.

[Richard]

I would venture to say, that a human found in the pre-Cambrian layer would only make the faithful naturalist say he was wrong about "when" the evolution took place

Yes, right. It would cause scientists to say, "wait a minute, the current evolution model is wrong. We need to re-evaluate it." That would lead to more and more questions that could very well dismantle the whole model. It's all chain-linked, and because of that, breaking the right link could mean major changes in the model.

This is the best answer to your question Tony. Yes, biologists would try to fit the new evidence with the evolutionary model, if the evidence doesn't fit then the model is changed or discarded. Until this happens join us in accepting the current model as the best explanation we have for the diversity of life.

[darkumbra]

Wow, ok, one more time... I am talking about falsifiability.

Actually? Given that I've offered you two DIFFERENT examples of what would falsify evolution... and you've rejected them? No you're not. You're playing a pointless game.

But, I'll humor you and persevere...

Phoenix just landed on Mars. If we find bacterial life there and it contains RNA and DNA with links to life on earth... ie. pieces of code that we find in bacteria here on Earth... then the concept of Evolution would be severely challenged.

I would venture to say, that a human found in the pre-Cambrian layer would only make the faithful naturalist say he was wrong about "when" the evolution took place,

You really don't get this 'science' stuff do you? It would NOT be about him being right or wrong, it would be about overturning all the evidence already obtained. If a pre-cambrian modern human fossil were found... the first thought would be a hoax of the highest order. Then? if it were proved that it wasn't a hoax - the entire scientific community would be scratching its head.

but despite that, the question is not, is there any fossil record that would make the evolutionist change his mind? (Which I think that is even a stretch), but, is there any characteristic of any kind that theoretically could not have slowly evolved by gradual mutation as is believed by evolutionist?

Sure there is. A fossil is found, or a living example is found, where the skeletal structure isn't bone or cartilage, but is instead a frame work of Aluminum bones. Evolution - as we currently know it - is overturned.

Let's assume that evolution is overturned tomorrow. That does NOT mean that 'God' is proved.

Now... I've patiently (somewhat) answered your demands for an example of something that would disprove 'evolution'...

NOW... let's see if you will do the same. I'll assume you believe in the ID theory... SO... please offer something that would disprove ID? In the same sense that you've been demanding that I offer a falsifiability test of evolution.

[tonyenglish7]

Tony, don't know what creationist source you are using, but here's an article in the NYT just recently regarding the age of the universe. Still stands at around 13.7 billion years. This is based on observations from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, from NASA. This jives with data from years before. So, this is just another example of how science makes predictions, then tests the universe for the accuracy of those predictions. When they are found to be true, we conclude that our models are true. Simple.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/scien ... osmos.html

I was not using a creationist source, it was all over the news recently. I am sure it will take more study but the news report said that a study of the galaxies using the Chandra X-ray telescope showed that the amount of dust in an average galaxy was underestimated by about 50% and therefore the brightness of the universe is about twice as much as they thought. This is a huge deal if true because the Calibration of many things is set on this figure of a standard star brightness. I am not a young earther so don't get your panties all up in a wad. I was just commenting on the recent news. It could turn out to be proven wrong with another method of study and still has to be challenged. But it was just an interesting tidbit. In the world of astronomy, it was huge news.... Yea, I agree, science is cool... I am fully 100% on board with science... It's naturalism, the faith that science is the only thing that reveals truth, that is erroneous.