The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Profile: Epiphileon
About
User Name: Epiphileon
Forum Rank: Advanced Member
Occupation: School Bus Driver
Interests: Nature, function, utilization, and potential development of consciousness
Gender: Male
Home Page
Statistics
Joined: Sunday, March 22, 2009
Last Visit: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:03:35 AM
Number of Posts: 3,876
[0.48% of all post / 1.32 posts per day]
Avatar
  Last 10 Posts
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Sunday, March 26, 2017 8:27:41 AM
Hello Dreamy, I'm assuming that as you continue to post on this issue that you are inviting discussion of the points you raise. I also respect the fact that you have your beliefs and that is entirely your right. I do not involve myself in these discussions in an attempt to change your mind concerning your beliefs.

I involve myself in these discussions because Creationism concerns me for a number of reasons, primarily for the attempts to present it as a valid, scientific theory, rather than a belief based on faith, and its proponents' attempts to invalidate a natural view of reality. I believe it puts Bible believing Christians in a paradoxical position, on the one hand they are to believe the Gospel on the basis of faith, and not on any type of works, which in my opinion the entire effort of creationism is, a work of man. On the other hand if they allow evolution to stand unchallenged it invalidates their belief, for as we agree, from any sound exegetical examination of the Bible, evolution can not have happened.

I also object to the fact that a primary strategy of Creationists involves the misrepresentation, or outright fallacious claims concerning my world view. I do not at all mind critiques of my views, in fact I seek them out, that was my primary motivation in my dogged pursuit of the issue of freewill in the numerous threads I started in the philosophy forum. However, if my view is to be critiqued, I do insist that it is actually my view that is examined, not what someone else thinks my view is, that does me no good at all, and leads to no refinement of my views in the manner that the freewill threads enabled. I am all for critical dialogue of issues, it is in fact the only safeguard against the incredible obstacle to understanding we call subjectivity.

This brings us to the specific issues I have with your last post...
Quote:
Theories can be proven or unproven depending on what one accepts as proof. The interpretation of scientific evidence by an evolutionist assumes there are laws of logic, which is inconsistent with the naturalistic worldview that only energy and matter exist.

The validity of any theory is subject to a rigorous set of requirements that has nothing to do with what anyone accepts as proof. The nature of scientific theories is not open to subjective evaluation.
Logic exists in the same manner that culture exists, it is a characteristic of the operation of a complex system, in this case the interaction of multiple complex systems, the mind, the evolution of mind, and culture. Logic is a creation of humans, it is a useful and accurate tool in the understanding of many aspects of reality, but not all. Laws of logic do not exist in the same manner that laws of motion exist.
To say that a naturalist's worldview only allows for matter and energy is erroneous, culture, love, personality, intelligence, etc. all exist, but have no direct constitutive matter or energy.

Quote:
Evolutionists do science because they are inconsistent. While they claim the universe is not designed they do science as if the universe is designed and upheld by God in uniformity, but this belief they suppress.

Here you are basing this statement on your preconception that a designer god exists, and projecting that onto naturalists. That is not correct, I do not suppress a belief that God exists, I accept the universe as it is, and with our current understanding of how it is. Six thousand years ago none of modern science existed and any explanation of reality required leaps of imagination, and there were numerous and varied explanations. The explanations naturalists have today, nearly entirely explain the universe and see no evidence of the intervention of a godlike entity. The universe is as it is, because that is the way it is as a result of entirely naturally explainable phenomenon.

Quote:
The preconditions of science are that the universe is understandable, that things in it are quantifiable, and that minds are sufficiently reliable to comprehend what is observed, and that logical, orderly, consistent laws determine its regularity.


These are not preconditions as in things made up in order to construct an explanation, they are what has been observed. That we can comprehend what has been observed is patently obvious in our ability to predict the behavior of systems that we have observed. That minds are capable of comprehension is exactly what you would expect if minds evolved within a system that required they be adaptive or perish. Oh and once again quantum mechanics is not logical. If science proceeded with preconceived notions as you've described quantum mechanics would be dismissed as illusory. Science forces naturalists to accept explanations they may entirely object to, quantum mechanics is a prime example of this, a personal example would be my view on freewill.

Quote:
By way of analogy DNA contains intelligent information showing evidence of design in a coded message which the laws of logic dictate must originate from a Creator.


What you are calling the laws of logic dictate no such thing, besides if our DNA is a result of intelligent design, why is so much of it junk? Evolution explains all of this with no reliance on a preconceived deity.

Quote:
The naturalist who insists that empirical observation provides all that can be known cannot explain how they know that. INCONSISTENT.


Find me a naturalist that insists on this and I would agree with you; however, if you want to know how a naturalist knows that empirical evidence, through the lens of rigorous scientific method, reliably explains what it does, I can readily provide you with an explanation for that. Review the entirety of the development of the scientific method from its infancy with the ancient Greeks to its modern practice.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: The Meaning of Life is an *
Posted: Saturday, March 25, 2017 1:55:30 PM
Hope123 wrote:
Interesting, Epi. Did they connect the two in the book? The 42 and the *?


High Hope, no they didn't and the story may be apocryphal, but it sure sounds good.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: The Meaning of Life is an *
Posted: Saturday, March 25, 2017 7:43:15 AM
For those of you still using a standard keyboard and computer, hold down the "Alt" key while entering 42 on the keypad, then release the "Alt" key, an * will appear. You will have to do this in a text editor, the reply screen here works fine.
So when Douglass Adams, an avid computer enthusiast, in "A Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy', had Big Think, the colossal computer created to answer the question of the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, with 42, it really means, as it so happens to be, the answer is anything you want it to be, as that is the use of an * in computer commands.

Think

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Is Angling a Bloodsport?
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 12:38:25 PM
My apologies Ashwin for the knee jerk rant above. I was too late to edit it and tone it down a bit. Your post reminded me of a time I endured a ranting vegan berating me as a sadist and murderer as I tried to eat my cheeseburger at a university cafe years ago.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Is Angling a Bloodsport?
Posted: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 9:04:03 AM
Ashwin Joshi wrote:
It’s a truly horrific experience for the animals – who feel pain, just as we do.


This is a truly preposterous claim. And this...
Quote:
Dr Donald Broom, a former scientific adviser to the British government, explains, “The scientific literature is quite clear. Anatomically, physiologically and biologically, the pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals”.


...does nothing to support that preposterous claim. Yes indeed the physiology of the pain center is most likely extremely similar to that in more complex life forms; however, fish entirely lack any of the brain physiology, or centers that can even remotely, be equated to the experience of pain.

I swim; therefor, I am, said no fish ever.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Scientific Answers From A Creationist Perspective
Posted: Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:14:55 PM
Hi Dreamy, I was once a creationist as well, and I fully agree that people have a right to believe what they wish, as long as it does not interfere with the adaptive functioning of the race in general. I have a good deal of respect for people who actually live a Biblical Christian lifestyle; however, I do object when people conflate belief with evidential knowledge.

I am well aware of creationists attempts at equating their explanation as science equivalent to the science of secular cosmology and evolution, but they do not hold up, but are rather a prime example of,
Quote:
Presuppositions vastly affect our interpretation of evidence.
the problem for supposed creation science is that it does proceed from a belief presupposition, while science proceeds from evidential suppositions. The fact that the universe is orderly and exhibits certain characteristics does not at all rely on it having been created by a supreme, interactive, entity. Further, that we are capable of logical thinking is clearly an adaptive evolutionary development, and the development of formal logic and the scientific method can both be seen as developmental processes most of which we have historical evidence for.

Creation "science" begins with the presupposition that God created the universe and therefore the evidence must support that belief. Cosmology began with observations of the sky, and attempted to provide explanations for what was observed, as our ability to observe became greater, our explanations became more accurate. If cosmology proceeded on the same basis as creationism, we would still be using astrology for astronomy.

Dreamy wrote:
When it is impossible to prove something scientifically then scientists hypothesize, they submit theories, and while these are available for study, discussion, and comment, - they are not proof. That is why they are called theories.


It baffles me how this interpretation of the nature of scientific theories persists. There are many theories that consist of a great many proven facts; however, we understand that we may not have all the facts that account for the phenomenon being described and therefore the "theory" is open to modification. That is why they are called theories, not because they do not describe evidential knowledge.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Spring Equinox, Eostre, Persian New Year
Posted: Monday, March 20, 2017 12:17:38 PM
Merry Days Drago, and everyone.

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: "After You"...Facing Choices
Posted: Saturday, March 18, 2017 4:58:05 AM
Hedy mmm wrote:
Please note: This is not a 'Religion' post, it's a 'Relationship' post, for those who love Him.....'Religion' is a man-made word,


Pardon me Hedy but all words are man made. Words are made in order to facilitate accurate information exchange and work best when their definitions are universally accepted. While I do recognize the distinction you wish to make, and agree that there is a huge difference between someone who is merely a member of a religion, and one who has specifically surrendered their life to the lordship of Jesus Christ, and uses only scripture as the guide to their appropriate behavior in service of this God, to say that is not a religion, or that this post is not a religion post, is inaccurate.

Religion:
TFD
1.a. The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe

Merriam Webster
1b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural

Oxford
1 The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Christianity is most accurately adhered to through the belief in a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, facilitated by the Holy Spirit, and guided by a steadfast endeavor to conform ones self to the principles elucidated in the Gospels and Epistles. Folks who do this are extremely rare, and in my opinion should be respected. These people can be found in just about any of the various Bible based sects but, even those who do not affiliate themselves with any established variant, e.g. Baptist, Presbyterian, Evangelical Free, etc... are still in a religion.


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: ONLY for fair-minded members and guests
Posted: Sunday, March 12, 2017 11:57:08 AM
Leaping freaky leptons, and bizarre boogieing bosons!

Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?
Topic: Reasons to Vote for Democrats
Posted: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:57:51 AM
I would suggest that unless we seek balanced thinking, the application of critical thinking, and stop buying into the bullshit that both parties sling, pretty much evenly, and oust the big money backed politicians in Washington nothing is going to really change.

The fact that Bernie Sanders was discriminated against by the Democratic party should be just as much of a issue as anyone else messing with the electoral process.

The fact that the current President is acting on his promises does not mean all of them were good. Some of the people he is populating positions of power with are highly suspect, and in some cases grossly unqualified.

The fact that even reasonable people are buying into the bullshit being peddled by both parties, and moving ever more towards entrenched, intractable, recalcitrant, positions, is only going to guarantee a dysfunctional government. A government by oligarchy, and not in any way a government of, for, and by the people.

Sorry Foundit this rant is in no way directed at you, its just that some of what I see on this subforum just leaves me shaking my head. The powers that be have pretty successfully moved the general population to a us/them mentality among ourselves instead of looking to where the real problems lie.


Question authority. How do you know, that you know, what you know?

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines. Copyright © 2008-2017 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.