Creationists admit "We are losing badly"

[badp]

I never said it wasn't. I don't pretend to know which religion, if any, is correct. Because the truth is there is no way to either prove or disprove any major religion

How do you know that? Sounds like a bald assertion.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Another philosophical question then. How does one know what he's observing is in the universe or outside it?

I legitimately enjoyed this question. It made me think.

The answer I'll give is that for everything we see, we have no current reason to suspect any of it is outside of our own universe. But it's possible I suppose. I think that if multiple universes exist in a sort of matrix outside of our own universe, that a collision between two universal planes could maybe create a bridge of sorts

 

[Greg Jennings]

How do you know that? Sounds like a bald assertion.

Can you prove any one to be true? Take a shot

 

[Greg Jennings]

Spoken like a man with no faith.

Not quite. I don't have blind faith. Call me a Doubting Thomas, if you will. You know who that guy is, right?

 

[Enthusiast]

Not quite. I don't have blind faith. Call me a Doubting Thomas, if you will. You know who that guy is, right?

You know what you call a man who refuses to put money on a horse during the race? A coward. You can sit there and be critical, tossing stones all the while but you don't have any stock anywhere, so who are you to even try to judge those who do?

 

[badp]

I legitimately enjoyed this question. It made me think.

The answer I'll give is that for everything we see, we have no current reason to suspect any of it is outside of our own universe. But it's possible I suppose. I think that if multiple universes exist in a sort of matrix outside of our own universe, that a collision between two universal planes could maybe create a bridge of sorts

The problem is that methodological naturalism limits the definition of the universe to that which we can theoretically observe. So the question, "Can we observe anything outside the universe?" is akin to "Can we draw a square circle?" It's self-contradicting.

This is a big problem for the multiverse proponents.

 

[Greg Jennings]

You know what you call a man who refuses to put money on a horse during the race? A coward. You can sit there and be critical, tossing stones all the while but you don't have any stock anywhere, so who are you to even try to judge those who do?

I'm a coward for admitting I don't know something?

Can't say I've ever heard that one before. If I say I think Buddhism is right, am I still a coward? I desperately need your approval

 

[Greg Jennings]

The problem is that methodological naturalism limits the definition of the universe to that which we can theoretically observe. So the question, "Can we observe anything outside the universe?" is akin to "Can we draw a square circle?" It's self-contradicting.

This is a big problem for the multiverse proponents.

Indeed. Which is why it is only entertained within the realm of theoretical physics. That is somewhat empirical however, because of the math involved. That's how we discovered black holes decades before observing one

 

[gcthomas]

And math is just numbers.

Follow the discussion and read carefully. It helps. The question was pointless, since the universe can be defined as all you can detect, everything there is that can affect you. Unless all the definitions are clear, then it is not philosophy, just sophistry.

 

[badp]

Follow the discussion and read carefully. It helps. The question was pointless, since the universe can be defined as all you can detect, everything there is that can affect you. Unless all the definitions are clear, then it is not philosophy, just sophistry.

Another cigar for you :cigar:

 

[Jose Fly]

This post is one long appeal to popularity.

Um....no. The fallacy of argument via appeal to popularity would be "A majority of people say humans evolved from earlier forms, therefore it is true". I didn't do anything like that. All I did was note that public acceptance of evolution is on the rise, and that some creationists are telling each other that they are losing badly.

If you don't understand the difference, read the above again until you do.

Jose, Do you have any more logical fallacies you would like to throw at creationism?

Maybe you should do a bit of checking into what a fallacy actually is, before you go around accusing people of it.

 

[badp]

Indeed. Which is why it is only entertained within the realm of theoretical physics. That is somewhat empirical however, because of the math involved. That's how we discovered black holes decades before observing one

Glad you brought that up. Neil deGrasse Tyson who is a theoretical astrophysicist likes to get on TV and talk about how Creationists are anti-science. I find that fascinating, given his own field of study involves a lot of anti-science, by definition.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Glad you brought that up. Neil deGrasse Tyson who is a theoretical astrophysicist likes to get on TV and talk about how Creationists are anti-science. I find that fascinating, given his own field of study involves a lot of anti-science, by definition.

Well you kind of missed the meat of what I said. Theoretical physics IS empirical if it can be validated through mathematics. Like I said, if it wasn't an empirically driven field, then it wouldn't have been able to predict black holes decades before we actually saw them.

Theoretical physics is probably the most interesting thing in the world

 

[KingdomRose]

Nah, it's dead. It was little more than a legal strategy designed (HAH!) to get creationist arguments in public schools, following a series of court rulings that banned teaching creationism in science classes.

It never even got off the ground before the Kitzmiller ruling put an end to that.

Science-wise, it never accomplished or contributed a single thing. So the only way it "lives" is in internet blogs and the like.



This has nothing to do with atheism. That you think it does only further demonstrates how ID creationism is about religion rather than science.



Ok then, give an example of something you think is "irreducibly complex" and describe how you determined it to be so.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is found in any "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning."

A bow and arrow is an irreducibly complex example, because if you remove any of its parts, it ceases to function. Irreducible complexity is easy to detect by taking a functioning machine and starting to remove individual parts to see if it stops working the way it should when the parts are removed.

The example of the hunter and the bow shows us that intelligent design theorists have a valid rationale for detecting design in nature by finding irreducible complexity, a hallmark that an intelligent agent has been at work.

Though intelligent design may be compatible with the teachings of various religions, the theory itself is not a faith-based explanation.

Intelligent design is an empirically based theory that uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process, involving (1) observations, (2) hypothesis, (3) experiments, and (4) conclusion. As I was saying before, intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that a natural object that is designed must contain high levels of CSI. Pro-ID scientists perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified info., and irreducible complexity is one easily testable form of CSI. Reverse-engineering experiments on biological structures show whether they require all of their parts to function.

When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that what is irreducibly complex must have been designed.

Some biological examples of irreducible complexity are: the process involved in blood-clotting, the cilium, the flagellum, the immune system, intracellular transport, and that's good for a start. You take one part away from the processes and you have a non-functioning situation.


(See Darwin's Black Box and Intelligent Design 101.)

 

[gcthomas]

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is found in any "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning."

A bow and arrow is an irreducibly complex example, because if you remove any of its parts, it ceases to function. Irreducible complexity is easy to detect by taking a functioning machine and starting to remove individual parts to see if it stops working the way it should when the parts are removed.

The example of the hunter and the bow shows us that intelligent design theorists have a valid rationale for detecting design in nature by finding irreducible complexity, a hallmark that an intelligent agent has been at work.

Though intelligent design may be compatible with the teachings of various religions, the theory itself is not a faith-based explanation.

Intelligent design is an empirically based theory that uses the scientific method to make its claims. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process, involving (1) observations, (2) hypothesis, (3) experiments, and (4) conclusion. As I was saying before, intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that a natural object that is designed must contain high levels of CSI. Pro-ID scientists perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified info., and irreducible complexity is one easily testable form of CSI. Reverse-engineering experiments on biological structures show whether they require all of their parts to function.

When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that what is irreducibly complex must have been designed.

Some biological examples of irreducible complexity are: the process involved in blood-clotting, the cilium, the flagellum, the immune system, intracellular transport, and that's good for a start. You take one part away from the processes and you have a non-functioning situation.


(See Darwin's Black Box and Intelligent Design 101.)

Did you cut and paste your whole long post?

 

[Jonahdog]

Did you cut and paste your whole long post?

Certainly not, I'm sure that post was the result of many many years of education and work in some are of biology. After all how would the poster know so much? It's all wrong but it is still alot.

 

[Jose Fly]

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY is found in any "single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning."

That was Behe's first definition, but it's since changed (at least a couple of times). But then that's largely irrelevant in the bigger scheme of things, since ID creationism is dead.

Though intelligent design may be compatible with the teachings of various religions, the theory itself is not a faith-based explanation.

Sure it is. The same people who came up with ID creationism also wrote The Wedge Strategy, which opens with, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." It also states "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

So yeah....it's as faith-based as it gets.

When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that what is irreducibly complex must have been designed.

Good for them.

Some biological examples of irreducible complexity are: the process involved in blood-clotting, the cilium, the flagellum, the immune system, intracellular transport, and that's good for a start. You take one part away from the processes and you have a non-functioning situation.

You need to keep up with the times. Those have since been shown to have evolved.

ID creationism is dead. The whole point was to get creationist arguments in public school science classes, but the Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling put an end to that. ID creationists aren't even trying to get ID creationism into schools any more.

Let it go and get back to your true cause....Biblical literalism.

 

[brewmama]

Well yeah....the OP is me 1) citing an ID creationist telling another ID creationist "We're losing badly", 2) agreeing, and 3) showing data that backs up the fact that they are "losing badly".

Yep. "Basically, anytime anyone starts a thread with the sentiment "Hey, look at what the folks on the other side are doing/saying", they are trolling, regardless of subject matter"

I suppose you'd rather not be made aware of that information?

Frankly I don't really care. I just think it's fair to point out the bias in the materialistic philosophy.

 

[Jose Fly]

Frankly I don't really care.

Noted.

 

[Dialogos]

Um....no. The fallacy of argument via appeal to popularity would be "A majority of people say humans evolved from earlier forms, therefore it is true".

Umm.... yes. Your argument so far is that one creationist admits that creationism is losing badly (meaning an unpopular position). You use this as a bludgeon to discredit the tenets of creation science.

Therefore your argument is essentially, "a majority of people say creationism is wrong, therefore it is untrue."

I didn't do anything like that. All I did was note that public acceptance of evolution is on the rise,

And from this you conclude......?

...and that some creationists are telling each other that they are losing badly.

Which is just another way of saying that public acceptance of evolution is on the rise.

So now, lets review.

Public acceptance of evolution is on the rise...

So what?

Some creationist points this out to another creationist.

So what?

Perhaps you can do us a favor and answer the "so what's" for us if you didn't intend to appeal to public opinion.