Creation vs. Evolution

noguru said:

I agree. I did not say any difference. However you do not seem to understand the implications of this. A closed system is controlled in regard to input of energy from outside. With the chemical reactions you were addressing factors can be controlled in way and that is a form of isolating a singular reaction. A closed system isolates heat exchange to within the system. It should also be noted that we can only approximate a closed system, though this does not negate its accuracy.

At any rate, you still have not explained how anything in this review of basic chemistry supports your model over the current model. Let me remind you that you started along these lines by trying to supply knowledge that the Holy Spirit has given which is not based upon empirical verification. Of course even the part in bold is inaccurate. Because these things are verified by empirical evidence from research.

Click to expand...

I'm simply relating to you what I have learned from taking science courses in school. I am not proposing a new model. As for science, I have pointed out that philosophy is behind even science. And for this we can discuss ways of knowing. The empirical method has humans using their sensory system, which is "ordinarily" made up of five senses. Some people have impairments. If truth is known by propositions, however, then we wonder if there is more to it than just having five senses. So when we discuss with people if science is the only way of knowing anything, we should perhaps have a discussion also about epistemology and the nature of empiricism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

As for Creation vs. Evolution, I don't believe it is an entirely science based discussion. Philosophy and Theology, which involve propositions that are not always scientific (or to be more accurate, are not always empirical), can and must also be considered. If science can neither prove nor disprove God, as many naturalists would say, then what does that say for our five senses and observing the natural world? That it is limited?! Can we not experience God's creation?! But we know that we can. If God is our Creator, then our lives should be lived according to His ways and design for us. If we cannot know that God exists, then neither can we know that we were created.

Untellectual said:

I'm simply relating to you what I have learned from taking science courses in school. I am not proposing a new model. As for science, I have pointed out that philosophy is behind even science.

Click to expand...

I was a philosophy major in college, I already know this. You seem to be catching up on this. I have no idea why you think that is a problem, however.

Untellectual said:

As for Creation vs. Evolution, I don't believe it is an entirely science based discussion. Philosophy and Theology, which involve propositions that are not always scientific (or to be more accurate, are not always empirical), can and must also be considered. If science can neither prove nor disprove God, as many naturalists would say, then what does that say for our five senses and observing the natural world? That it is limited?! Can we not experience God's creation?! But we know that we can. If God is our Creator, then our lives should be lived according to His ways and design for us. If we cannot know that God exists, then neither can we know that we were created.

Click to expand...

If your subjective perspective of this is not accurate, then your view is meaningless. Science itself is a philosophy. It is natural philosophy. In some colleges and universities the science department still retains the name first given to it by the ancient Greeks; "The School of Natural Philosophy".

But in science/natural philosophy the foundational assumptions are still verified through empiricism. You still have not offered any knowledge in science that is not verified through empiricism.

noguru said:

I was a philosophy major in college, I already know this. You seem to be catching up on this. I have not idea why you think that is a problem, however.

Click to expand...

You are looking for me to change science or you will not consider what I say, so I wanted you to know that I take knowing things seriously. Should we be talking about the scientific method, or about methods to come to know things?

I can let this rest. But if you still have interest I am available right now to continue on this journey with you.

noguru said:

If what your subjective perspective of this is not accurate, then your view is meaningless.

They are always verified through empiricism. You still have not offered any knowledge in science that is not verified through empiricism.

Click to expand...

Again, you are forcing me to science and naturalism, or scientific naturalism. But I am not a scientific naturalist. I believe truth can be known.

But if we are talking about the philosophical implications of Einstein's (General) Theory of Relativity upon knowing things, I can readily admit I have had my own experience in this world. If I must say it was subjective, I must also ask... who's experience has been only objective? That's an interesting question. I'm going to go with Jesus on this to answer my own question.

Untellectual said:

Again, you are forcing me to science and naturalism, or scientific naturalism.

Click to expand...

No I am not forcing you. I am asking you to provide another way we can verify the truth of a claim. You still have not given that.

Untellectual said:

But I am not a scientific naturalist.

Click to expand...

I do not care what you call yourself. The proof is in the pudding.

Untellectual said:

I believe truth can be known.

Click to expand...

I agree. Even if we can only discover the likelihood of a claim being accurate, we can still achieve a close enough approximation of truth for all intents and purposes.

Untellectual said:

But if we are talking about the philosophical implications of Einstein's (General) Theory of Relativity upon knowing things, I can readily admit I have had my own experience in this world. If I must say it was subjective, I must also ask... who's experience has been only objective?

Click to expand...

All individual experiences are subjective. It is in the methodology used in science that we can approximate an understanding of objective reality. And again empiricism is the only way to verify/falsify a claim. If you have another way you should provide it now and dispense with the bluster.

Untellectual said:

That's an interesting question. I'm going to go with Jesus on this to answer my own question.

Click to expand...

No. You are going with your subjective view of what Jesus has to say on the matter, you are not Jesus. I have scoured the Bible many times though, and I still cannot find a place where Jesus or any of his contemporaries is offering a scientific treatise. It is your claim that scripture contains this, and as of yet you have offered no support for your claim.

noguru said:

No I am not forcing you. I am asking you to provide another way we can verify the truth of a claim. You still have not given that.

I do not care what you call yourself. The proof is in the pudding.

I agree. Even if we can only discover the likelihood of a claim being accurate, we can still achieve a close enough approximation of truth for all intents and purposes.

All individual experiences are subjective. It is in the methodology used in science that we can approximate an understanding of objective reality. And again empiricism is the only way to verify/falsify a claim. If you have another way you should provide it now and dispense with the bluster.

No. You are going with your subjective view of what Jesus has to say on the matter, you are not Jesus. I have scoured the Bible many times though, and I still cannot find a place where Jesus or any of his contemporaries is offering a scientific treatise. It is your claim that scripture contains this, and as of yet you have offered no support for your claim.

Click to expand...

I believe you believe we can know things objectively. I believe you believe this is according to science. I know that subjectivity does not produce objectivity. We are talking about claims and propositions. I believe we can know if a thing is true by the Holy Spirit, and by reading the Bible. The Holy Spirit will not contradict the Bible.

I realize some may point out the law of non-contradiction.

I believe I know things with both my five senses and my mind.

Untellectual said:

I believe you believe we can know things objectively. I believe you believe this is according to science. I know that subjectivity does not produce objectivity. We are talking about claims and propositions. I believe we can know if a thing is true by the Holy Spirit, and by reading the Bible. The Holy Spirit will not contradict the Bible.

I realize some may point out the law of non-contradiction.

I believe I know things with both my five senses and my mind.

Click to expand...

Subjective and objective are not opposites. A subjective view can be in line with the objective reality as best as is humanly possible. We have covered this many times now, though you still do not seem to be absorbing it. Then you wonder why I think you are incompetent. Again the proof is in the pudding. The pudding being that which is empirically verifiable.

All the other gobbledegook you posted just further illuminates how confused you actually are on this matter.

noguru said:

Subjective and objective are not opposites. A subjective view can be in line with the objective reality as best as is humanly possible. We have covered this many times now, though you still do not seem to be absorbing it. Then you wonder why I think you are incompetent. Again the proof is in the pudding. The pudding being that which is empirically verifiable.

All the other gobbledegook you posted just further illuminates how confused you actually are on this matter.

Click to expand...

In our conversation you pointed out the question of what do I have to offer if my view is subjective.

That Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead is a fact and an objective truth.

That God created the heavens and the earth is too.

And you can't have one without the other, though you may want to examine or find yourself convinced by one or the other (first).

Untellectual said:

That Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead is a fact and an objective truth.

That God created the heavens and the earth is too.

And you can't have one without the other, though you may want to examine or find yourself convinced by one or the other (first).

Click to expand...

Hoping and wanting your beliefs to be objective is a sure way to be subjective about an issue.

Untellectual said:

In our conversation you pointed out the question of what do I have to offer if my view is subjective.

Click to expand...

No, that is not what I pointed out. I pointed out that there is a methodology which can maximize the objectivity of our subjective views. And that you do not use that methodology. That methodology is to use all the empirical evidence available on which to base our view of the world, as well as to consider other opinions, with rigorous analysis of all opinions. You have chosen only one opinion, before considering all the empirical evidence available. You then try to claim that your unfounded subjective opinion is actually objective simply because you believe the Bible. You also reject any empirical evidence that contradicts the prematurely chosen opinion you have. That is definitely not an objective methodology.

Dear noguru,

My last post that I deleted was about whether you believe in the Holy Ghost and that it exists. But I don't want to set a stumblingblock before you, because we both know that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable. So you can see why I had to delete it. I don't want any of the atheists to have to answer it wrongly unknowingly. And I know you believe in the Holy Spirit anyway.

God's Love Be In Your Life and Heart,

Michael

MichaelCadry said:

Dear noguru,

My last post that I deleted was about whether you believe in the Holy Ghost and that it exists. But I don't want to set a stumblingblock before you, because we both know that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable. So you can see why I had to delete it. I don't want any of the atheists to have to answer it wrongly unknowingly. And I know you believe in the Holy Spirit anyway.

God's Love Be In Your Life and Heart,

Michael

Click to expand...

A sin that Jesus death did not take care of? Interesting

gcthomas said:

Hoping and wanting your beliefs to be objective is a sure way to be subjective about an issue.

Click to expand...

Do you believe God created the universe and that Jesus rose from the dead?

noguru said:

No, that is not what I pointed out. I pointed out that there is a methodology which can maximize the objectivity of our subjective views. And that you do not use that methodology. That methodology is to use all the empirical evidence available on which to base our view of the world, as well as to consider other opinions, with rigorous analysis of all opinions. You have chosen only one opinion, before considering all the empirical evidence available. You then try to claim that your unfounded subjective opinion is actually objective simply because you believe the Bible. You also reject any empirical evidence that contradicts the prematurely chosen opinion you have. That is definitely not an objective methodology.

Click to expand...

I have no problem using science to research the natural world. My issue is when people say you cannot know that God created the world by observing the things He has created (in nature).

Untellectual said:

To you believe God created the universe and that Jesus rose from the dead?

Click to expand...

No. Why would I when there is no physical evidence, only ancient heresay?

gcthomas said:

No. Why would I when there is no physical evidence, only ancient heresay?

Click to expand...

It is something you should consider. I encourage you to read the Bible and look for God to reveal Himself to you in your life. He has even revealed Himself to us through nature (His creation).

Untellectual said:

It is something you should consider. I encourage you to read the Bible and look for God to reveal Himself to you in your life. He has even revealed Himself to us through nature (His creation).

Click to expand...

Why do you think I haven't considered it? I have read the Bible and attended a large number of services.

And what is revealed through nature is a law based predictable existence that seems to need no supernatural component.

gcthomas said:

Why do you think I haven't considered it? I have read the Bible and attended a large number of services.

And what is revealed through nature is a law based predictable existence that seems to need no supernatural component.

Click to expand...

Structure and order testify to a creator, as I see it. I am glad you have read the Bible. Have you read each of the four gospels?