Evolutionists Appropriating ID?

Originally posted by KellyJay
People look at the universe around them all the time and make up stories on what
this means or that trying to come up with reason to justify their beliefs about how
all of the unvierse got here.

You've got it back to front. My beliefs of how we got here are based on the stories created by the evidence. I do not need reasons justify my beliefs. I have reasons already - the evidence.

People make up stories to show lying is wrong, stealing
is wrong, being loyal is right and so on. Both of groups of people are using what
they see around them to come up with their stories.
But there is a clear distinction between fiction and non-fiction. You seem to incorrectly believe there is no difference whatsoever and that therefore you can call factual stories 'fairy tales' simply because they are both types of story. I am sorry by you can't do that and get away with it.

You seem to be complaining that stories the evolutionist tell are being called stories
which is really all they are.
No, I am complaining that they are being called fictional stories, which they aren't. A 'fairy tale' is a specific class of fictional story. The stories evolutionists tell are not fairy tales.

It isn't like anyone has seen life spring from non-life and then later over time change into something else to document the process.
I fail to see how this is even remotely relevant. Or are you now admitting that factual stories do infact exist and that for you personal witness by a human being is required for a story to be factual? Are these factual stories different from fairy tales?

To claim it is based on evidence makes these stories better than fairy tales, I'll
just say they are still stories that like some movies that are based upon facts.
Yes, stories can be factual.

Fairy tales where they base their meaning on what they see around them are still a made up to paint a
picture on what they think is true or entertaining, the stories evolutionist tell are made for different reasons, but they are still just stories.
Neither fairy tales nor what evolutionist tell are 'just stories'. Nor are they the same type of story. For you to pretend that they are equivalent is dishonest of you.

I do not think that you would in every day life pick up a newspaper and say "its all fairy tales".

Originally posted by KellyJay
The stories I've heard describing what the world was like when it was without life
and all the changes that were required seems so beyond reality I think it to be
completely false. If you can tell me how it began, be specific maybe you can
enlighten me or other readers here on why you believe it to be true.
Kelly

What I find interesting is that you seem to hold two contradictory stances.
1. You claim to know enough about the past to know what is or is not possible. You claim that certain aspects of the scientific account are impossible.
2. You claim that scientists themselves know next to nothing about what happened and are therefore making it all up. You also claim that their basic facts cannot be disproved as regardless of the evidence there will always be a reasonable explanation that fits with the basic claims. But this contradicts 1. in that you claim there are no reasonable explanations.

Originally posted by JS357
Is the above your best guess?

We are creatures of faith.
In the end yes.
Kelly

So it could be the case that what we claim to be reality is more than just a best guess.

Then the issue is, what makes a particular guess the best guess.

Lily Tomlin, noted ontological scholar, said “What is reality, anyway? Just a collective hunch”.

I prefer "collective hunch" as it emphasizes that reality is an intuitive group guess.

There is a chair.
We think about the chair and our thoughts paint it.
We look at the chair and our minds take it in and we understand as we see it,
and than there is the chair which doesn't need our thoughts or minds to be
what it is.

That is a poor man's version of what someone talked about here once before,
I don't recall how it was said, or if they were speaking about another's work.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
What I find interesting is that you seem to hold two contradictory stances.
1. You claim to know enough about the past to know what is or is not possible. You claim that certain aspects of the scientific account are impossible.
2. You claim that scientists themselves know next to nothing about what happened and are therefore making it all up. You also c ...[text shortened]... he basic claims. But this contradicts 1. in that you claim there are no reasonable explanations.

Scientists have to be able to change their minds as soon as something else
comes along and goes against what they thought was true. So in that regard
they know nothing, because all they know has to be thrown out the window as
soon as something else comes along. The only difference there is evolution, as
it will never or could be proven wrong as soon as one part is proven wrong
someone will pull a "Roberts" and make what is there into something else that
proves it. The evidence will always fit that one, because that is what everyone
who believes in it wants it to be.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
What I find interesting is that you seem to hold two contradictory stances.
1. You claim to know enough about the past to know what is or is not possible. You claim that certain aspects of the scientific account are impossible.
2. You claim that scientists themselves know next to nothing about what happened and are therefore making it all up. You also c ...[text shortened]... he basic claims. But this contradicts 1. in that you claim there are no reasonable explanations.

We all bring stories to the discussion, you can take that one any ole way you
want. Being a story does not mean it is not true, it means that it describes
what someone thinks, because they are bringing it out of their imagination.
Data points are all well and good as long as you know what your looking at
actually means what you think it does. Seeing evidence as I said before does
not make your version of what the evidence actually means true, it only means
you have an idea and your going with it. So your claims that you know what
happen billions of years ago all rests on your understanding of what it is you
believe the evidence is telling you, which does not mean you are getting it right
and since you cannot be proven wrong.....have at it, just know that is what
faith is all about.
Kelly

Originally posted by RJHinds
It has not been shown conclusively that it's possible for life to form from non-living chemicals given the right conditions. It has been shown conclusively that mankind did not evolved from one of the apes, like a chimpanzee.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/10/01/exceptional-humans-did-not-evolve-from-apes/

Scientific Evidence th ...[text shortened]...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJioWKPlBIw&feature=related

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!

The problem with your argument is time is not on your side. Science advances daily. Your bible does not advance at all. It can't provide for the complexities of the modern world where every person can be carrying an atomic bomb in his or her backpack.

Science will figure it out but until then, have fun with your illogic.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Reality is what is actual and true. There is no guess work there. We have all our senses to identify what is actual and true in the material world. Christ came and gave us an idea of what is true in the spiritual world, but we can only guess what that spiritual world is actually like. When we wake from a dream, we quickly realize we have been dreaming an ...[text shortened]... n creation by God, and the Atheists, who believe in evolution because God is not real to them.

You are much more tolerable when you just say what you think about the subject, like you do here, than when you mock and insult. However, you don't really address the subject of what makes a best guess the best, and the roles of collective thinking and intuition in that "hunch". These subjects are in line with what Kelly says about our ability to know what is real.

Your commitment to your Christianity would be, after all, no more than your best guess, too.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There is a chair.
We think about the chair and our thoughts paint it.
We look at the chair and our minds take it in and we understand as we see it,
and than there is the chair which doesn't need our thoughts or minds to be
what it is.

That is a poor man's version of what someone talked about here once before,
I don't recall how it was said, or if they were speaking about another's work.
Kelly

Good. You introduced "best guess." Isn't it fair to ask on this thread how we know if a guess is the best guess? Doesn't this address the issue of relying on science versus (alleged) revelation, in our lives? An issue that you have addressed by calling scientific knowledge a best guess?

Won't it also apply to how we know an alleged revelation is the best revelation to believe?

Is the answer the same for knowing which scientific guess is best, as for knowing which revelation guess is best?

In other words, maybe there is nothing to be concerned about in agreeing that our knowledge as "best guesses." Maybe calling it that, adds and detracts nothing from the respectability and reliability of our knowledge.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Scientists have to be able to change their minds as soon as something else
comes along and goes against what they thought was true. So in that regard
they know nothing, because all they know has to be thrown out the window as
soon as something else comes along.

So if you encounter new evidence that proves that something you thought was true, you do not change your mind? Interesting. What a stubborn person you must be. At what age did you stop learning?
Or am I mistaken and you infact know nothing too?
Or are you simply not making any sense because you have a bone to pick with scientists?

The only difference there is evolution, as it will never or could be proven wrong as soon as one part is proven wrong someone will pull a "Roberts" and make what is there into something else that
proves it. The evidence will always fit that one, because that is what everyone
who believes in it wants it to be.
Kelly
So you admit that any claims you made in this thread about you not believing evolution because you think it could not have happened are invalid because you fully admit that there will always be a reasonable explanation for the available evidence that fits with evolution.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Being a story does not mean it is not true,

But being a fairy tale essentially does mean it is not true. So when you earlier called the scientific account a fairy, you were essentially saying 'it is not true'.

..and since you cannot be proven wrong...
So you withdraw all claims you made earlier in the thread that it could not have happened according to the scientific account? You accept that the scientific account is perfectly plausible?

Originally posted by twhitehead
But being a fairy tale essentially does mean it is not true. So when you earlier called the scientific account a fairy, you were essentially saying 'it is not true'.

[b]..and since you cannot be proven wrong...
So you withdraw all claims you made earlier in the thread that it could not have happened according to the scientific account? You accept that the scientific account is perfectly plausible?[/b]

There seems to be a misuse of the word scientific, at least in the way I understand the word science. I understand science as knowledge of the truth of the material world we live in. Science has no way of knowing the truth about how the material came into existence, but only that it exists now and seeks to know more about it.

Those people seeking to gain this knowledge of the truth of the material world are called scientists. Those people sometimes speculate on what might be the truth about the material world. This speculation is sometimes called scientific by people like you.

We must remember that speculation and opinion is not science even when made by some of these scientists. The theory of evolution falls into this category of speculation. Inspite of what some scientist might say, it has not been proven to be a true fact of scientific knowledge of the material world at this time and, therefore, it has not been accepted as a law of science.

P.S. That is, this so-called scientific account is no more that speculation and opinion by some, not all, people called scientists. A real scientific account must be true.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There seems to be a misuse of the word scientific, at least in the way I understand the word science. I understand science as knowledge of the truth of the material world we live in.

The standard meaning as understood by most people can be found on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Your definition is close to, but not identical to, what they refer to as 'an older meaning'.

When I use the word 'science' depending on context, I am referring to both the methodology known as the 'scientific method' and the body of knowledge obtained via that method, and the people (scientists) involved in obtaining and recording that knowledge.
I know you like to pick on evolution, but the truth is that your beliefs conflict with most branches of what I call science including amongst others:
1. Most of astronomy.
2. Most of biology.
3. Most of geology.
4. Some chemistry.
5. Some physics.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The standard meaning as understood by most people can be found on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Your definition is close to, but not identical to, what they refer to as 'an older meaning'.

When I use the word 'science' depending on context, I am referring to both the methodology known as the 'scientific method' and the body of knowl ...[text shortened]... astronomy.
2. Most of biology.
3. Most of geology.
4. Some chemistry.
5. Some physics.

My beliefs only conflict with the speculations and opinions of some of the scientists in those branches of science. To my knowledge, my beliefs do not conflict with true scientific knowledge in any branch of science.

P.S. For example: I believe in the existence of a DNA information language code in living cells as evidence of its creation by God.

Originally posted by JS357
Good. You introduced "best guess." Isn't it fair to ask on this thread how we know if a guess is the best guess? Doesn't this address the issue of relying on science versus (alleged) revelation, in our lives? An issue that you have addressed by calling scientific knowledge a best guess?

Won't it also apply to how we know an alleged revelation is the best re ...[text shortened]... that, adds and detracts nothing from the respectability and reliability of our knowledge.

There was no intent to detract from respectability or knowledge, it was simply said
to make sure we are all on the same page here. NOTHING any can tell anyone
else about that which may have occured billions of years ago can be anything but
a best guess. You either saw it or you did not, if you did not your simply looking at
things around you and putting together what you think occured. This will never be
shown wrong unless someone who was around to know how it all began speaks
up. So then what can be known for sure about the distant past, nothing beyond
anyone's best guesses.

Alleged revelation simply puts into question if it really occured the way it was said
to have been done or not. Nothing wrong with the question, but if accepted as true
than you have one who was there speaking up and it is a trust issue nothing more.
If you believe God did what has been written, where He spoke and all things were
created then another's best guess will be just that, if you reject God doing what He
was said to have done your still with nothing more than a best guess as to what
happen.

Scientific knowledge is like shifting sands in my opinion what is true today can be
thrown out by some new piece of knowledge where we have to revist our truth. So
we walk in the truth we believe we have we are creatures of faith.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
But being a fairy tale essentially does mean it is not true. So when you earlier called the scientific account a fairy, you were essentially saying 'it is not true'.

[b]..and since you cannot be proven wrong...
So you withdraw all claims you made earlier in the thread that it could not have happened according to the scientific account? You accept that the scientific account is perfectly plausible?[/b]

I'm not going to repeat myself I've hit these points before you just don't want to
see the answers.
Kelly