subjective science

Originally posted by @dj2becker
So still don't get it do you? Who said 'evolution' is wrong ? If you want to believe that you are the product of a brain dead, clueless and stupid mechanism be my guest.

This is your much vaunted "objectivity" in action, presumably.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
What if the majority of scientists are brainwashed into believing evolution is a scientific fact, wouldn't that mean that the scientific community could just reject any evidence that doesn't fit their bill?

In Africa, people know that AIDS is caused by a virus. However, there are some who believe that the disease is caused by a witch😵

Originally posted by @fmf
Your interesting post may not fit neatly into dj2becker's "backbone" v "cop out" dichotomy. 😛

I know, I know😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
In Africa, people know that AIDS is caused by a virus. However, there are some who believe that the disease is caused by a witch😵

I believe in evolution, but I don't give it the credit many evolutionist do. I do not believe
all life sprang up from a single life form, but instead all evolved from the starting point of
their kinds once their lives were formed by God.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
The funny thing here is if you reject the existence of objective truth as a starting assumption, your belief system is logically no more or less true than the belief system of a chimpanzee. I'm sure you find that thought very reassuring.

Kindly please define Objective Truth😵

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Or perhaps you are wrong in thinking my presupposition that you are presupposing evolution is wrong is wrong.

At its core, the theory of evolution in the modern synthesis relies on these ingredients:
- DNA reproduces
- DNA mutates
- DNA affects the phenotype

For the theory of evolution to be incorrect, one of these ingredients must be incorrec ...[text shortened]... hen attacking the theory of evolution implies you do not understand the basic idea of evolution.

Would you care to explain to me how someone who suggests that evolution is an 'intelligent mechanism' is attacking the theory?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I believe in evolution, but I don't give it the credit many evolutionist do. I do not believe
all life sprang up from a single life form, but instead all evolved from the starting point of
their kinds once their lives were formed by God.

Yes, there are several views like yours, Kellyjay; back in ’96, John Paul II accepted the theory of evolution during his message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences but rejected it for the human soul. To him, the human soul is the result of a separate, special creation. To the majority of the scientific community, this view is simply rejected😵

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Kindly please define Objective Truth😵

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

It is kind of obvious that objective truth must exist: Communication relies on there being an objective truth. When I say something, you hear it. We're in a shared world. What you hear isn't random, it has to do with what I said. It's not based on your whim or subjectivity. What you hear is a close approximation of what I actually said, because you seek the truth of what I said and it is there to be found. Communication is only possible when there is one single truth of what is being said for all the people communicating.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
A child dying of cancer is a strawman?!

Such an occurrence is incompatible with the existence of a perfectly loving God, leading to the inescapable conclusion that such a deity does not exist. How more relevant can one get?

Start a new thread on this.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) ...[text shortened]... possible when there is one single truth of what is being said for all the people communicating.

It is a matter of reality for me, since I believe in creation I'm not someone who says ID
when looking at the universe. I'm a creationist, ID is true due to God, but ID doesn't
require God it is simply ID with anyone who can be responsible for it. I also don't believe
in abiogenesis, since if we look at all that is required I think there is no way everything
that must have come together could have given the scope of what was required.

I believe the variety of life sprang from what God created, and once they left the ark they
started multiplying and diversity started with natural selection, but it was with established
life forms, not life that sprang from non-life with no plan, design, or purpose. This is not
much different than what took place with mankind after God gave us different languages
we split up and our looks started becoming different, but still we are all the same race.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
I will start a new thread on this.

Sin, its fruit is horrible.

Originally posted by @black-beetle
Yes, there are several views like yours, Kellyjay; back in ’96, John Paul II accepted the theory of evolution during his message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences but rejected it for the human soul. To him, the human soul is the result of a separate, special creation. To the majority of the scientific community, this view is simply rejected😵

The human soul is different than animals due to how we were created, just an aside. 🙂

Originally posted by @kellyjay
It is a matter of reality for me, since I believe in creation I'm not someone who says ID
when looking at the universe. I'm a creationist, ID is true due to God, but ID doesn't
require God it is simply ID with anyone who can be responsible for it. I also don't believe
in abiogenesis, since if we look at all that is required I think there is no way every ...[text shortened]... uages
we split up and our looks started becoming different, but still we are all the same race.

I agree with you, I also cannot see how intelligence can purely be the product of matter and time.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I believe in evolution, but I don't give it the credit many evolutionist do. I do not believe
all life sprang up from a single life form, but instead all evolved from the starting point of
their kinds once their lives were formed by God.

If you do not believe all life sprang up from simple lifeforms then you reject the theory of evolution.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Would you care to explain to me how someone who suggests that evolution is an 'intelligent mechanism' is attacking the theory?

The theory does not invoke an intelligent designer, so assuming there is one attacks the theory, similar to how saying that gravitational waves were sent by a supernatural being and can not be explained without one attacks the theory of general relativity.