27 Dec 13
Originally posted by sonhouseI've no bias against real science! I believe it is the best way to look at the
In other words, you won't look at the video's. I am sorry for your bias against real science.
the natural world. Where I draw the line is when people make claims that
they believe are true so that everyone else who sees or hears about these
are left with choices, they accept or reject. Those are claims that have to
accepted on faith, did you do all you needed to do to make those claims
flawlessly or not? It is all faith, you are putting it in something, be it some
else' logic or someone else' argument/theory or whatever.
Kelly
27 Dec 13
Originally posted by KellyJayIn other words, no.
I've no bias against real science! I believe it is the best way to look at the
the natural world. Where I draw the line is when people make claims that
they believe are true so that everyone else who sees or hears about these
are left with choices, they accept or reject. Those are claims that have to
accepted on faith, did you do all you needed to do to ...[text shortened]... ng it in something, be it some
else' logic or someone else' argument/theory or whatever.
Kelly
27 Dec 13
6 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat you are talking about? I have no idea. Are you, for example, saying I am wrong because I base what I believe on logic rather than faith? if not, what are you saying here? -please clarify in plain English please for I am no good at deciphering encrypted messages.
Why sure it isn't something you believe, why because your beliefs tell you
just look at your logic?
Kelly
I beg of your to, just for once, actually read my whole argument and then try answering my questions in a concise logical manner so that I can understand what you are actually saying. If there is any part of my argument that you disagree with, please specify exactly which part and explain exactly WHAT you think is wrong with it in plain English.
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by humyI'm sorry it is still faith, even suggesting you are using flawless logic says
It is not faith but a matter of logic that science will eventually make life from none life because it would be just a matter of degree of technological advance.
Science can already make certain components of a living cell and demonstrate it to function just fine (for example, a whole functional chromosome was made and inserted into a cell and was shown to wo ...[text shortened]... make it; I mean, exactly what impossible barrier will forever stop science finding a way?
that you believe you have covered all the bases, nothing that is required
to be correct for your views to be true are wrong, false, or anything short
of what you believe. Logic requires truth statements, it does you no good
to get your math correct if all the values you are using do not fit reality like
you believe them to be, neither does it mean anything if you are not
looking at all the required pieces properly. For all you know, you may only
be looking at half of what is required, you may not have the full picture.
You could be spot on too, but the thing is, you really don't know.
So you believe, you are trusting in your knowledge, you are walking in faith.
Kelly
How is it the "real" scientists here can't seem distinguish between random forces of nature and a carefully controlled experiment? Am I really supposed to believe the process is the same, or that it doesn't matter if one is random and the other is controlled? None of this passes any real test for logic and reason, or even believability.
Really guys, you need to do better than simply claim to be more logical and reasonable than the people you disagree with. So how about dropping the attitude and posturing and actually do something to prove what you claim is true? Act like real scientists... start with the evidence and see where it points, instead of simply working to prove what you believe is true.
If evolution is true the evidence will point in that direction. If evolution isn't true the evidence will point in some other direction. How difficult is it to start with the evidence and let that determine whether evolution is true or not?
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by KellyJayThey can't hear you. You're up against the powerful influence of a self image, and they depend on that self image to define who they are. No bull, I'm serious, they literally have no idea what you mean when you tell them their beliefs are dependent on faith in something they want to believe... because that's the very argument they make against "religious" folk, and by definition (their definition) they can't be swayed by blind faith, because they are not religious folk. See how that works? The logic is self validating.
I'm sorry it is still faith, even suggesting you are using flawless logic says
that you believe you have covered all the bases, nothing that is required
to be correct for your views to be true are wrong, false, or anything short
of what you believe. Logic requires truth statements, it does you no good
to get your math correct if all the values you are u ...[text shortened]... on't know.
So you believe, you are trusting in your knowledge, you are walking in faith.
Kelly
It's a closed system, and can't be touched by outside influences if those influences work counter to their belief. I've run into the same problem when talking to some religious types, but it makes absolutely no sense for anyone who eschews religion to promote what they believe as though it was a religion. Evolution is the only branch of science that does not intersect well with other related branches, and judging from what is usually published it's clear they don't believe they need this kind of validation.
28 Dec 13
5 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIn other words, by basing what I believe on evidence and flawless logic, I am using 'faith' 😛
I'm sorry it is still faith, even suggesting you are using flawless logic says
that you believe you have covered all the bases, nothing that is required
to be correct for your views to be true are wrong, false, or anything short
of what you believe. Logic requires truth statements, it does you no good
to get your math correct if all the values you are u ...[text shortened]... on't know.
So you believe, you are trusting in your knowledge, you are walking in faith.
Kelly
err, nope, I am not. Try looking up the words faith evidence and logic in the dictionary, carefully compare, then came back to us.
it does you no good to get your math correct if all the values you are using do not fit reality like you believe them to be
I am NOT USING ANY MORAL VALUES when judging the truth about either maths or the physical world! And why should I?
I mean, what has morality got to do with maths?
Can't someone get their morality 'wrong' right but still get their maths right?
Are you really implying the absurdity that my moral values must first be 'right' before I can correctly know a truth about the physical world?
If so, that makes no sense.
I do NOT use my moral values to judge what the truth is about things that have absolutely nothing to do with morality such as anything to do with evolution or how old the Earth is.
Your moral values should not in anyway effect you judgement of the truth about the physical world else you will form delusional beliefs about the physical world!
Also, I do not want evolution nor old-Earth to be true (why should I want this anyway? ) but, rather, base all of what I believe purely on evidence and reason and never on what I want to be true. Hypothetically, if the evidence showed a young-Earth and no evolution, then I would believe, without hesitation, young-Earth and no evolution. The evidence very clearly shows an old-Earth and evolution thus this is what I believe.
28 Dec 13
10 edits
Originally posted by lemon lime
How is it the "real" scientists here can't seem distinguish between random forces of nature and a carefully controlled experiment? Am I really supposed to believe the process is the same, or that it doesn't matter if one is random and the other is controlled? None of this passes any real test for logic and reason, or even believability.
Really g ...[text shortened]... ficult is it to start with the evidence and let that determine whether evolution is true or not?
If evolution is true the evidence will point in that direction. If evolution isn't true the evidence will point in some other direction. How difficult is it to start with the evidence and let that determine whether evolution is true or not?
That IS starting with the evidence. “start with the evidence and let that determine whether evolution is true or not” means simultaneously noting “If evolution is true the evidence will point in that direction. If evolution isn't true the evidence will point in some other direction.” and look at the actual evidence and see which of those two hypotheses it most closely fits. That is just the way scientific method works.
More generally;
If we have two exhaustive and mutually exclusive hypotheses H1 and H2 and H1 predicts evidence E1 and H2 predicts evidence E2 then if the actual evidence in its entirety is more like E1 than E2 then the actual evidence favors H1 and is against H2
You don't appear to understand how both even vary basic rational thinking and science works.
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by lemon limeNot very, which is why we know that evolution theory is valid.
If evolution is true the evidence will point in that direction. If evolution isn't true the evidence will point in some other direction. How difficult is it to start with the evidence and let that determine whether evolution is true or not?
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by humyWho am I to debate flawless logic.
In other words, by basing what I believe on evidence and flawless logic, I am using 'faith' 😛
err, nope, I am not. Try looking up the words faith evidence and logic in the dictionary, carefully compare, then came back to us.
[quote] it does you no good to get your math correct if all the [b]values you are using do not fit reality like you believe th ...[text shortened]... olution. The evidence very clearly shows an old-Earth and evolution thus this is what I believe.[/b]
Kelly
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by lemon limeI believe you nailed it.
They can't hear you. You're up against the powerful influence of a self image, and they depend on that self image to define who they are. No bull, I'm serious, they literally have no idea what you mean when you tell them their beliefs are dependent on faith in something they want to believe... because that's the very argument they make against "religious" ...[text shortened]... from what is usually published it's clear they don't believe they need this kind of validation.
Kelly
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by humy"moral values" who talked about moral anything? When I spoke about
In other words, by basing what I believe on evidence and flawless logic, I am using 'faith' 😛
err, nope, I am not. Try looking up the words faith evidence and logic in the dictionary, carefully compare, then came back to us.
[quote] it does you no good to get your math correct if all the [b]values you are using do not fit reality like you believe th ...[text shortened]... olution. The evidence very clearly shows an old-Earth and evolution thus this is what I believe.[/b]
values I said that it didn't matter if your math was correct if it did not reflect
reality. The values you apply to your logic is no different, if you are not
looking at the universe properly, if you make any error, if you leave out
anything you require, perfect math or logic only shows you, your error
perfectly.
Kelly
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI presented you guys with videos that used reason, logic, and science to make sense of the evidence and it led away from evilution and toward creation. However, you guys would not accept the reason, logic, and science, because it did not support your faith of atheism and evilution.
Not very, which is why we know that evolution theory is valid.
28 Dec 13
7 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
"moral values" who talked about moral anything? When I spoke about
values I said that it didn't matter if your math was correct if it did not reflect
reality. The values you apply to your logic is no different, if you are not
looking at the universe properly, if you make any error, if you leave out
anything you require, perfect math or logic only shows you, your error
perfectly.
Kelly
"moral values" who talked about moral anything?
You said:
“..it does you no good to get your math correct if all the VALUES you are using do not fit reality like you believe them to be ...” (my emphasis)
if you were not talking about moral values in the above, then exactly what kind of “values” were you talking about? -give ANY SPECIFIC example.
When I spoke about values I said that it didn't matter if your math was correct if it did not reflect reality.
No, year clearly said “..it does you no good to get your math correct if all the VALUES you are using do not fit reality like you believe them to be ...” (my emphasis)
You CLEARLY said in the above “if all the VALUES you are using do not fit reality” and said nothing about MATHS not reflecting reality.
If you don't believe me, just go back and check for yourself.
But if what you are now saying is what you meant in the above was “...MATHS you are using do not fit reality...” then:
1, I now take it “values”, whatever you mean by that word here, has nothing to do with it then. Right?
2, I haven't used maths anywhere in this thread. I used none mathematical logic and you have not explained why that logic would be incorrect nor why it doesn't reflect reality if it is correct.
The values you apply to your logic is no different, ...
Stop right there; exactly what kind of “values” DO I "apply to" my "logic"?
If moral values, then I am not using any in that logic nor any for judging truths about physical reality (I may and do use moral values elsewhere such as in my social interactions but that has absolutely nothing to do with it and is totally irrelevant here ) . If you deny this fact, please just try and humour me by stating exactly which moral values I am using here and exactly how I go from those particular moral values to any specific conclusion about the physical reality.
If NOT moral kind of values, exactly what kind of values are you referring to here? Give a SPECIFIC example and explain how I go from that 'value' to a specific conclusion about physical reality.....
28 Dec 13
Originally posted by RJHindsAh yes, a banana. The atheist's worst nightmare. Or was it peanut butter?
I presented you guys with videos that used reason, logic, and science to make sense of the evidence and it led away from evilution and toward creation. However, you guys would not accept the reason, logic, and science, because it did not support your faith of atheism and evilution.