Now you can complain about how that learning was preserved but you have to admit it was preserved. The point, as I said to Richard, is what if science has limitations? Actually all that has been proven is that life changes. I never said anything about religious people not trusting science.
What I was trying to say was that science is not an ideology—like Christianity, for example—but rather, a means by which to reach a commonly observable conclusion; this is what makes science powerful to me, the fact that its conclusions are commonly observable by any number of people.
If reached correctly, the results of a scientific experiment can be objectively seen by more than one person and are not subject to interpretation, as religious evidence is. This makes the conclusions reached by scientific reasoning much more accurate on the whole than conclusions reached by religious doctrines, which, to me, seem to draw conclusions from thin air, then bend scientific facts to support those conclusions.
As such, religious conclusions tend to be obvious only to the person who reaches them initially. If eating makes my stomach stop hurting, then I can conclude that my stomach hurt because I was hungry. In most cases, it must be done several times, and sometimes a separate experiment must be done with regard to the conclusions if different ones are reached each time to factor in their significance overall.
I simply copied and pasted so… go back and re read your post…. What I am objecting to here is the implication behind your statement. Lets take a short example: Newton physics and Einstein physics. He rearranged the way the information was preceived. Other wise you have random information that makes no sense….
It does not follow that there has to be an order or logic to the change. Problems arrise when things are added to the process. Is this science or is it philosophy? Kind of silly. Now that worship has taken on many different forms and many different faces but the impulse is there as much as the impulse to create life.
Seems kind of closed minded to me. Personally I would like to continue this conversation Tim or Miko can you create a new post where we can continue this? According to kuhn science is possibl only if someone provides a model with which to work ie paradigm. Not in so many words, this is exactly what I was saying; science is not a model itself but a process through which you run a model through.
Because different people have different interpretations for the same evidence. There are some things that are objectively true, which we have come to know through science—for example, the fact that a child is created in the womb by a process involving the union of the sperm and egg and the formation of a zygote cell. This is not debatable; it is a fact. On the other hand, there are things which are still up for debate i. There is no more evidence to support the objective existence of the Christian or Muslim, or any other religion God over the existence of any other God or supreme being, or any lack thereof.
Given that there is evidence that suggests not proves , mind you God does not exist to me, lack of evidence to prove a theory is evidence which suggests that the theory is invalid, or at least less valid than a more provable theory. All you have succeeded in proving to me is that science has not solved all of the mysteries of our universe something I already know to be true. Scientific observation has suggested very strongly that such a pattern exists in the development of species on earth across long periods of time.
Evolution says nothing about the origin of life or the creation of life. Evolution itself is involved with change. The part about the origin of life is only implied at the very least, and is often simply assumed on the part of Creationists. There are whole separate chock-fulls of theories to explain the origin of life on earth, not all of which are supported by evolution or have anything to do with it. It requires a predetermined definition of the factors involved; such definitions arise from whatever belief system the user already holds.
If what you say is true that science is not effective in proving objective facts , then explain to me another possible reasoning system that one could use aside from the one I listed in my last post that would allow one to reach the conclusion that eating is the solution for hunger. What method can you use to reach that conclusion, without making any observations or making any decisions based on those observations? We have words for people who can reach conclusions without making observations; irrational is one of them.
However, science concerns itself not with disproof, but with proof; if a theory can be tested, then it is tested, and a coclusion is reached. Examine Richard Dawkins argument concering the death penalty here :. On this Richard Dawkins and I disagree; there is the question of whether the car is broken or not, and there is the question of where a person chooses to go with a car that is working properly. Not exactly, no. The Bible in my eyes is not evidence at all, but rather a claim, a statement.
Evidence is required to support it before it becomes factual. Well actually you have millions and millions of people who from time long ago have felt a compulsion to worship. Again, though, this is not evidence which suggests the existence of a higher power any more than the other arguments you have offered. Rather, it suggests a desire to believe in a higher power. But for reasons I have already explained, God cannot be scientifically tested or observed, so the idea of God as a scientific theory is somewhat puzzling and, on the surface at least, rather silly.
As such, I have no scientific view on God. As a result, I find it silly to base our decisions as a society that relies on logic and reason on something which cannot be observed or tested scientifically. This is why I oppose the integration of church and state. I would like to discuss your position. In other words science can only test to proove not to disprove. To say it another way. Is that logical? Does that mean you believe this process, that requires interpretation through flawed human beings has led us into the light of truth?
An example: There used to be 9 planets in our solar system. We now have 8. Did Pluto get blown up…? Did it move? Did we loose it under the carpet? Now Pluto is still there nothing has changed but our defintions, in other words objective truth has now changed BECAUSE we have changed our definition. If you want to argue with me on this: If I had questioned the number of planets in our solar system five years ago you would have called me insane or stubbornly obtuse.
Now lets play with that a little bit more. Could such a shift alter our perception of reality? If you think this only applies to planets your sadly mistaken. The law of gravity. Where does it exist? It is nowhere. Law: The idea come from the 17th 18 century that our universe is mechanistic like a machine that operates like a clock. What has the largest gravitational pull in the universe? Literally nothing, a black hole actually has the greatest pull in the universe.
Yes, the law of gravity is a symbol. Can you in detail describe to me how gravity works? Or is it actually a symbol that functions in your mind as to why things fall. This is how most of us function. We use these things as symbols rather than as completely understood laws. Do you mean the empirical method? You failed to grasp what dawkins is saying. Because of DNA, the mechanistic universe there is no free will. According to Dawkins we are programed from birth by our DNA to be what we are. Free will is an illusion. I would like to know how YOU have come to the conclusion that free will is possible given that there is DNA behind nearly everything?
This statement displays an amazing lack of information on your part. The Bible is a collection of ancient document 66 differnet books written by over 30 different authors over the course of years. It is a collection of ancient documents… like a library. Each book is evidence just like the illiad, Heroditus, Thucidities, Plato, the list could go on and on. It is a evidence that someone wrote something. It is evidence. First: Who said anything about basing anything on anything.
Secondly: Who said we base our decisions as a society on logic and reason? He could exist, but I see no reason to believe he does at this point. What I meant with regards to lack of evidence simply means that I will not presume the existence of something for which there is no proof to suggest its existence. However, I am also saying that science does not concern itself with things that cannot be proven or disproven; rather, science takes what we can know and seeks to draw conclusions from that which can be observed and tested.
God is a hypothesis that was created thousands of years ago, without the use of scientific observation. Since it is a hypothesis without a scientific base, it cannot be tested by scientific method. If any of the observations made on the way to learning how to make a computer had been false or flawed, then the computer would not have been invented.
We did not change anything about Pluto physically, nor did something we discovered cause us to realize that we had seen something wrong with its physical structure. Which is what science is about. Creationists who attack science say that we are to ignore the things we can see and instead hold a belief in things which cannot even be proven to exist i.
What makes you believe the desk is there, if not science, a series of observations and conclusions? Also, you seem impatient with regards to science; science says that we observe everything we can by every means we can, and draw conclusions thusly. If a change occurs in the way we are able to view things, and we can see something from a new angle, then we change our definitions as well. If you want me to believe that something is true, all you need to do is show me something to prove it. So again, I say that science is not a belief system, but rather a method of exploration which allows us to reach conclusions about things based on what we can see.
It is the things we cannot see that later come into the equation and threaten our original conclusion; this is not a problem, for science will acknowledge the new observation, test it, and determine if it is true. If it is true, then it will hold up under scientific scrutiny. If there is a flaw in this somewhere, then you should be able to show me an example where gravity does not apply in context. We see it, we document it, we test it, and it holds up; therefore, it is. Simply, yes. Science shows me things that cannot be denied. The Bible tells me not shows me things that I can ask questions about, questions to which I cannot receive satisfactory answers.
You are asking me to offer a professional opinion on a matter in which I have no schooling; I am not a DNA scholar. There are libraries out there with hundreds of books that make this claim or a similar one. The fact that a large number of people said it does not make it true, and does not serve as evidence in any way.
People have free will and can say whatever they please, regardless of whether it reflects factual reality. As such, the Bible offers no physical evidence to prove that God exists as you have failed to do. I have written articles about this subject before…. We are sometimes affected by emotional responses to situations. However, it is our job to learn how best to react to these emotions so that we can handle them in a socially acceptable manner. For example, if you are angry at a spouse, you should find a way to vent your anger that is productive or at the very least, not counterproductive , as opposed to, say, bashing his or her windshield with a baseball bat—the latter will ensure that you are punished by the legal system.
Logic and reason are the processes of using observable facts to make a decision. This does not vary from person to person; what does vary is the way a person interprets the information; some people choose to see certain proofs as evidence of something that the proofs do not suggest, for example, and others may simply misunderstand the evidence i. Another example—a common creationist argument is that childbirth proves that God exists; I disagree with that, because there is no factor of the childbirth process which points to a logical conclusion that God exists.
Actually if you listen to Plato you could question the reality of the desk, computer and chair. Plato would say that we certainly act like the desk, chair, and computer are there but that is because our physical bodies interact with them. While our physical senses tells us about the world around us does that make them more real? The point is that even our physical senses are processed by our mind prior to anything else.
How would we know if this were the case? What if there is more to the world than we can see or observe? What if there are things which cannot be seen, observed, or tested in the universe that somehow affect us? I have done my fair share of searching, both through media such as the internet and libraries as well as in real personal life, and I have yet to see one documented case of a completely unexplainable phenomenon; I have heard claims by doctors that they saw muscle tissue knitting back together before their very eyes, but I have not seen proof of this kind of occurrence; I have heard only unsubstantiated claims.
But I digress…. That is where science draws the line; science does not take a conclusion and test it backwards to find an observation that might suggest it. That seems to be your rallying cry. I have to go but I find that interesting. Tomorrow I may address this issue. You wrote both these lines:. So which one of these positions is your real one? Is that about right? Well lets see how that works with some other things. How about a gene? Where does free will come from? Since there is no evidence for free will, following your logic we must assume it is not real.
Is this the case? Why should we be able to detect it? For example pinpoint who the first person was across the Rockies. Not specifically, and not exactally. You take peoples word for it. I think you are under estimating just how committed to philosophical materialism you really are. Let me get to it. Immanual Kant addressed this in the 18th century in the Critique of Pure Reason. Each person is bound to their worldview. This is exactally the point. FActs themselves are up for interpretation.
Think back to what you have said:. It is a commonly agreed upon definition it could change in a heart beat. Let me finish with this. There is a difference you know. You asked me earlier by doubting the law of gravity if people would float away. Which is the given in this statement? People do not float off the planet therefore the law of gravity is true. Or The law of gravity as a theory is true so we do not float off the planet. You think that because I question the theory therefore I believe people float off the planet. Your silly question betrayed you, why would you assume I would think that people would float off the planet?
Now as to true verses not incompatiable.
Answering Atheism–Zeitgeist the Movie ebook | Exchanged Life Discipleship
A more real example I went to the store and bought three bags of ice, a banana and I stole three candybars. How do we know that we are even asking the right questions that will lead us to the Truth? What is a higher truth? That people scratch themselves OR that people make choices? One certainly is physical people do scratch one is an idea people making choices Which one is more a higher or more important reality?
What does it mean to Parent a child? All science can say is: lots of people parent their children in lots of different ways. How do you know your truely being rational, verse buying what your college professors put on a tray for you to believe? Perhaps I was unclear; allow me to rectify that. If God exists, then we may eventually stumble upon evidence to suggest that he does. No, your analogy here is much too general.
I have yet to see a particular occasion on which this reasoning becomes faulty enough to challenge i. If we say that something should be considered a valid scientific theory simply because somebody thought of it, then we will be testing hundreds of thousands—maybe millions, or billions—of ideas which are essentially groundless and pointless. Why is this not an assumption. In this analogy you assume that the detail of import is the identity of the person, rather than the fact that the person exists. Yes, I take the word of scientists who have made a lifelong career out of testing and experimenting with different concepts, settings, ideas, and factors, because they are capable of showing me—and explaining to me—studies and tests, and allowing me to reach my own conclusion as to what the evidence means, as opposed to implying that their conclusion is the only just or possible one.
I believe in science and scientific examination because it has shown me everything I know to be true; in order to prove this wrong, one must provide an example in which non-empiricism has shown something to be true objectively so in such a way as to disprove a scientific approach. In other words, a situation in which irrationality has proved something to be true that rationality has thought to have proven. But again, this is a scientific method; in which case it would seem that the only way to disprove science….
Because science outlines a system of logic in which things can be used to prove other things; without science nothing can be proven or disproven. Science is the process by which we can use known factors to deduce unknown factors. I understand this and am attempting to answer your questions as honestly and with the least amount of malice I can manage which I hope you perceive as none.
For there are only two categories available at this level of reasoning: things that are, and things that are not. And as for which is the greater truth; neither is greater, for they are both truths. If you want to question my motives in supporting science i. Whether or not you believe the reasons I give you is entirely up to you. Do you understand what Thomas Kuhn meant when he said that science requires a paradigm to even function? The empirical process itself is a biased processed.
How do you make a hypothesis? You have to have an opinion-a world view to even make an hypothesis. Why do we not float off the planet? You have totally missed my point; that these are ALL Assumptions. Imagine someone owes you a hundred dollars and you ask him for it. He assures you that he has it and he pulls out of his wallet a one hundred dollar bill and hands it to you.
You see its unique details, feel its money texture, smell its money odor, and test it with a counterfeit detecting marker. You know you have been paid. Imagine instead that he assures you he has the one hundred dollars but instead of taking it out and handing it to you he starts talking about the nature and history of money, the state of the economy, the difference between money and wealth, the philosophical, sociological and political concepts of ownership, and goes on with tediously intricate, long-winded and esoteric soliloquies about reality, knowledge and truth.
If you would like to post I would love to have a discussion with you. They may seem boring to you but that just means thinking is actually work. Please point them out for me. You may be bored with my questions but does that make them irrelevant? These are questions that are being asked by Michael Foucault, Jacques Derrida and others. Richard you seem to think I have to prove something.
Well sorry, but so do you. Maybe God did it. While I appologize for coming across as an arrogant Bastard. Either he is a late college attendee or he is in high school. Technically, given Tim is in high school, he IS way over his head. Thus it makes this conversation difficult. I have to go. You completely ignored my point about every person having a bias.
You say that science requires a paradigm to function; simply saying it is not proof that it is true. Science is the process of filtering out biases, at least it is in the way that I understand it. You have to have an understanding of the facts being presented, yes. It is there, and the facts show that it is there. If one chooses to refuse the facts, then so be it, but the desk and the computer are still there—they can still be detected and interacted with.
The laws of the universe are not random, that much we know. We may not understand all of them, but there is a pattern, plain and simple—may I suggest the periodic table of elements? The point I was attempting to make was that proper scientific analysis does not ultimately allow for a bias; if a bias is present, the information will be inaccurate. That is the beauty of scientific examination, and of logic and reason; logic exists outside of the human persona. It is up to humans to identify and execute it. In that sense it is very much outside of human opinion, although human opinion can easily corrupt it.
Wow; might I ask where this hostility comes from? I was simply explaining my viewpoint; yes, I believe science is objective. But the reason this is impossible is because, to prove that, one would require the use of empiricism, scientific rationale. Without science, there is no reason, and there is no logic. Therefore, all logical deductions become impossible, as does proving anything using evidence. For the record, I am 19 and currently saving money for college. I believe what I do because, in my experience, it has been a flawless, tried-and-true method of finding out factual things, and avoiding attempts at manipulation by people who require a suspicious amount of trust with regard to certain matters.
Where does logic, reason and scientific examination exist outside of the human persona? What physical object in the physical world can you point to that IS those things? As if that would proove your point. Pick up a dog and throw it off the top of the building and it will fall. It only works with humans and it works best with humans who speak the same language. To put it in the form of a question. I just assumed they were from the Plato era, since you were quoting him earlier….
If it is performed correctly, it produces results that reflect physical reality. However, concepts—while intangible—are not the inventions of man. They are things that exist, but take no form, and are very real; they affect everything. It is impossible to function rationally without the use of scientific examination to some degree, for science is defined by rationality. The names we give to those concepts are invented by man, but to confuse the words we give to these things with the things themselves is, in my opinion, a grave mistake.
Take emotion, for example. An emotion is not a physical thing that one can touch, and yet there is a scientific explantion to describe what it is, how it works, and where it comes from. This displays my point quite well—that assigning a definition to a concept does not necessarily require that said concept take a physical form. As such, logic and reason are not physical objects, no. They describe a series of processes the brain or any system, such as a computer undergoes in order to reach a conclusion.
The game consists of players constructing a trap that will lead an object to a predetermined goal. The object in question uses logic to determine which direction it will travel; since the laws of physics prevent it from passing through other physical matter, it will only travel where there is no physical resistance, and only if it is set into motion by some force of propulsion.
If the object reaches a point where it is both hindered by physical matter and unpropelled, it will stop. The same basic concept applies to all physical matter. In that respect, the entire universe—both living and nonliving—uses some form of the scientific process in order to function. Without using logical thought, factors cannot be used to deduce other factors, because there is no reason to explain why Factor A implies Factor B. To assign a definition—which is necessary to even classify the factors in the first place—requires a justification for that definition, which is a scientific concept.
How do we decide who or what is God? Take a dog, for example. How do we know that a dog is not God? Because a dog is not omniscient; a dog is not capable of being in more than one place simultaneously. Since it does not fit the definition, it is not God. Or, if that seems too complex, we can simplify it: Dog. How do we know what is a Dog?
Therefore, it is not a dog. They describe a series of processes the brain. Logic exists outside the human persona but yet is a concept that is an invention of man. How can an idea have an objective definition? How do we know a dog is a dog? There is nothing objective in the definition of dog? We [as english speaking people] come together and agree to call that furry little thing a dog. So, when solid objects have subjective definitions how can an idea which has no solid physical presence have an objective definition?
You begin the discussion of what is a dog with defining a dog? Because we have defined it. You think you have proven something? In logic you do have to define your terms but you do NOT begin the argument by defining what you are trying to determine. What is a dog? You do NOT define dog in order to determine what it is. You COULD begin by defining: furry, organism, living, four and legs and then try and demonstrate how a dog fits into these definitions. Tim this is what has frustrated me the entire time.
I misunderstood you. I am not comprehending YOU. I then try to get you to commit to another position and all that does is provide you the oppertunity to flip around again. Now this is not bad, if you believe in holding paradoxal positions than perhaps I AM misunderstanding you. Logically they can not both be true. Our public school system does not teach good reasoning nor logic. However, unless I point out this flaw, this conversation will never develop into a reasonable nor rational conversation.
I am not interested in that; I honestly am interested in a reasonable conversation with an athiest. It does not solely describe the process of the human brain, or any living thing—it describes a process by which all things in our universe operate. What language we use to describe the thing is irrelevant; the concept is the same in all languages. The words do not exist until they are needed.
So what you are asking me to do is logically impossible and unnecessary. Here, you again make the mistake of confusing words with independent things. I have described a dog to you as we have defined it; if that is not clear enough, then there is but one last resort:. Rather, I am suggesting that the concepts which those words describe are objectively real.
Again, you seem to be implying that my thought process is something gleamed from a textbook or a class. That is not true. These models take the information and they create systems. But you are not attempting to see what I am saying you only want to see what You are saying… I understand your position do you understand what I am questioning?
Science is the method by which things are examined using observations and comparisons and theories and conclusions and, ironically, the base foundation for college courses. Science does not apply to just one small thing here or there; science applies to everything.
Sometimes faith. Sometimes life. Always whatever's in my head.
One can call some things objective truth, but that does not make them so; what makes them so is that they are. Science has never failed me in my life, and so I trust in it. That is all. An easier and much more effective way of proving your point would be to explain it all at once. Jumping around only serves to ambiguate matters. Contrary to what you continue to insist, I am open to alternative viewpoints. You have simply failed to pursuade me of yours I still disagree with the idea that illogic is a more practical manner of study than logic, and I find it ironic that you are using logic and reason to try and convince me that logic and reason are not effective.
I understand that you have thought about the way you believe, and that it makes sense to you, and I wish you could do the same to me. Perhaps if we can avoid personal attacks, we can keep this conversation on track? Tim, I am trying to keep this conversation on track. I for my part believe you. However, there are some very smart people who have thought of your position before you. First off, your use of terms is extremely sloppy. Science is a field that relies heavily upon empiricism. The empirical method and science are not the same.
They are different. It is a combination of philosophical materialism, empirical inquiry and western logic. Philosophically this position was challenged by Immanual Kant in the 18th century. Now if you would like to disagree with Immanual Kant, you of course may disagree. Now, if you disagree, I would encourage you to pick up some philosophy learn some logic and jump into the discussion. I know Richard Dawkins would love to have such proof. In his last book he all but ignored any kind of philosophical development in his work. I have. However, what I am doing is appealing to the ideal and concepts as put forth by those I have cited: Kant, Kuhn, Nietzche, ect.
To lay all their work out would be to be redundant. Others have done a much better job before me and this post would get even MORE boring than it already is. So to finish up. I am answering what you are asking me to the best of my ability. You have every right to take it or leave it as you see fit. If I have said anything to the contrary to make you see it otherwise, then I apologize; this is why I wanted to avoid presenting my beliefs as facts, because I knew it would afford this level of confusion. Science cannot know if what it discovers is the entire, unabridged truth at the time of the discovery—I admit and have admitted that freely.
May I defer you once again to my puzzle analogy? Therefore we would never know or be affected by it in any way; for in order for us to be affected by something, there would have to be a physical means by which to produce this effect which could be observed scientifically. With all due respect, again, I am not arguing with Mr.
I am debating the points you have specifically mentioned to me here. But I do have one question for you, honestly. You seem so disillusioned with the process of logic. What I want to know is, what method would you consider to be more productive than logic? This is yet again another example as to how you change your position. As to Kant: The reason I keep pounding him is because you keep denying his essential point of Critique of pure reason. You are the one who has said things like:. You are. I am simply questioning that assumption.
Question assumptions. Back to the point, though…. When I listen to preachers talk about belief in God, for example, I say that I will believe when I see. We are talking about an entire belief system, here. The magnitude of the change such a dedication requires is too great for me to deliver without an exceptional degree of explanation. So yes, one could argue that there are potential flaws in such a method as science. They are based on factors for which there is no effective method of observation.
I, in turn, argue that it is the best method by which to accurately observe reality based on what we currently know, and that it should be upheld until another ideology is proven to have reflected reality as effectively as science. And do you disagree with science alone, or are you criticizing logic and reason as well? We would be in agreement—would we not? I understand—whole-heartedly—the desire to question common acceptances.
I believe it is the best way to look at the universe; its core essence is about doing the best with what we have, and I fully support that. The reason I asked for an alternative is because alternate viewpoints the most popular of which currently includes religion go so far in some cases as to ignore information that we have in favor of a desired belief.
I strongly disagree with this mindset. But when that control is threatened, and the belief system is used to harm others in any way, is when I consider it unacceptable. With respect to that: I find criticism of logic itself very difficult to explore rationally, because it literally requires the use of logic to criticize logic.
Because the only alternative to logic in all its forms is chaos. And on that note, I leave you with a question: Do you believe that a tree makes a sound if it falls in the woods, but there is nobody there to hear it? If so, why? I would question that. The key to a complete philosophical system is that it answers all the questions. Putting that puzzle together would be nearly impossible. What a philosophy does is paint a picture with the puzzle pieces it provides the picture that allows you to put the information into a coherent mental image. This is what i mean when I say we have a perspective that affects us with out us even realizing it.
What has made you believe this? Have you ever actually seen a tree fall when there was nobody around, and heard the sound it makes? I also say this of logic and reason.
The Top 5 Televange-List
I still uphold my challenge to you to present a single instance in which logic or reason has shown something to be false when illogic or lack of reason has shown it to be so; such a case would be all one needs to prove that logic and reason are ineffective in any area of life. Or, if the conditions cannot be reproduced, then he or she could be mistaken as to what actually caused it.
Which would support my point that logic seems to be the natural recourse of the human brain. If there are unknown factors, this is not a sign of a flaw in logic itself, but rather with the conditions of the experiment. For example, a situation in which one sees someone else shoot a third person in the head. The witness of the shooting will be lead to believe that the shooter has shot a person in the head.
This example perfectly illustrates what I mean when I say that science can revise itself in light of new or contradictory information. Ok… lets try and scientifically prove music. Ok… Let try and scientifically prove whats moral. Should you Kill a person? Nietzche believed that morality was created by the weak to destroy the strong. Ok, lets determine whether the mona lisa is art. Scienifically objectively determine what is art and what is not.
Is Beowulf a good poem or a bad poem? Scientifically can you tell me that? Speaking of morality can you use the empirical method and determine the difference between Good and evil? Do I need to go on? Who says whats the right emotion. Nothing more nothing less. What do you want? But good and bad are mere inventions of man, not objective concepts, so no, they cannot be scientifically tested, nor do they need to be.
Is this implicative of a moral concern? If our deductions are correct, then the natural world from which the original factors are born will corroborate them. For example, if we were to deduce that a certain series of logical sequences would result in a functioning computer, but our interpretation of those sequences were inaccurate, then the circumstances would not result in a functioning computer. They would result in something else—probably an object very similar to a computer, but not functioning.
Or perhaps something else entirely. It is all known, tested, and proven. If you believe it is not, then you are burdened with explaining why the computer works as it does in spite of this. Is it not objectively true that, during that time, you regard eating cake as good? Is that not an objective observation? Is there maybe a specific instance you can point me to in which this occured? Perhaps a specific sentence, paragraph, page, or book? What is so special about Kant that he is not hindered by human perception? How are we to know that what he said is even relevant?
If I am correct in assuming that the ant farm represents human perception, then this analogy is quite flawed. First, the ants are unaware that they are in a farm.
As far as they are concerned, they might as well be in a mound somewhere in your front yard. Something very obvious, that anybody can look at and determine as physically true or real. Things that can be reproduced, proven, and shown, are true. It is up to the person who is challenging common perception to prove that it is flawed, and in this case, that is you. This sentence right here demonstrates the tautology you have gotten yourself into… According to this statement:. Humans are aware that there is a thing called perception their particular way of viewing objects and interpreting their meaning.
Your driving will affect your driving which is really what we call golfing. You freely admit that our perception is limited and you turn around and claim it is what we call objective reality. So in your dizzing display of logic I am completely lost. Wait you did answer that. I have heard not such definition.
Secondly, any time you use the word defined it means human perception is involved. Not quite. Basically, yes, but not in the way you describe. Alright, fair enough…. If we can deduce things—such as the structure of, say, a light bulb—that are reproduceable to the point that they are used in common life….
Can you assemble a functioning light bulb based on a proven formula in such a way as to produce something other than a functioning light bulb? However, the very purpose of studying the world around us is to learn how better to manipulate its resources in whatever form they may come for our benefit in one way or another. Therefore, it is useless to us, and furthermore, since we can never know its existence, it might as well not exist at all. Think of it like this: I want to know what a dog IS not what it is not but what it is. So right out of the gate according to you I have to know what a dog is not first, before I know what a dog is?
You have presumed to know that which you are trying to discover. Ok, here you completely lost me. To me this is what you are saying: Individuals are untrustworth they get ill and see things badly, but when they are with other people… well, boy oh boy do things get better! Tim this is not logic, this is wish fulfillment. So for something to be proven it must first be visible to multiple differing perspectives? That should be a fun ride trying to get everybody to agree on well… anything. MMM sounds interesting. What if they are not comitted to empiricism as an answer to everything but consider it useful and helpful.
Can you assemble a functioning car to produce something other than a functining car? There is nothing universally true about a light bulb. You stick a plant in the ground it will grow. They manipulated the elements in a creative fashion. We do the same thing with everything else. How does holding up a lightbulb prove that matter is the highest reality?
In some cases, the odds could be compared to those of winning the lottery ten, or twenty, or fifty times in a row. And no, again your description of my position is incorrect. I never argued that something is true simply because many people believe it. Rather, I argued that something is true if it is demonstrable in multiple perspectives.
For example, the lightbulb—whether you believe the lightbulb will work or not does not affect whether it works or not. Its functionality is beyond your perception, therefore it is objective. No I can not because by definition I have assembled a functioning light bulb. It cannot be changed, wished, or believed into anything different—simple as that. Exactly; this is objectively true, in the same vein that it is objectively true that, if I put X materials together in Y fashion, I can obtain product Z every single time, guaranteed.
It is not the origin of the materials that is at issue here; it is the process by which the materials are converted by man into a final product using a specified method. It is, it works, and it cannot be debated. Science studies the things that are capable of affecting other things; if something cannot affect something else in some way, then that something might as well not exist at all, for it serves no physical purpose.
This is why it is so important for you to provide an alternative to the methods of logic, reason and science; if you have no alternative method that is capable of pursuing these claims, then your criticism is worthless—you might as well criticize me for not being able to shoot laser beams from my pupils. Is there something I am doing wrong that prevents me from shooting eye laser beams?
Two there is a difference between what a thing is and what it is not. You have to have a Given. It cannot work without a given assumption. The first step in logic Tim is know what you have proven. Ask any philosophy professor or logic professor that if you have demonstrated what something is NOT that have you demonstrated what it IS. A better and final example: What is an gruffnerkimplepod? We will substitute gruffnerkimplepod with X Is X a house? What is X? Is X a box? Is X a kitten? Is X a dog? Assumptions usually are not proven.
They just are not. They are Given. I am not the one who has to prove this. Even better yet, please challenge my very poor and sloppy interpretation of his work. That at least could pose an interesting conversation. So why am I here? But even that was merely hypothetical.
However, if that is too complicated…. That is what a dog is. Which leads me to my next question…. Because things do exist independently of their names; proving this is as easy as changing the name of something. If I could do that, this conversation would obviously be over by now. I am simply debating your claim that logic and reason are somehow flawed because they cannot refute baseless claims. Logic and reason can refute or confirm any claim for which there is a base.
Should we behave as though this claim is true? It is still a more specific variety of a specific variety of furry, four-legged creature domestic. This is true, and neither you nor anyone else can prove otherwise, because it is the way it is—simple as that. Things exist as things a dog as what it is, even when stripped of all titles and nomenclature, is still what it is; its appearance and functionality will not change, no matter what you or I call it.
Again, you make the mistake of confusing the words we assign to these things with the things themselves. You seem to think that there is a better way to make decisions than by logical deduction or scientific discussion, and yet you seem unable to specify exactly what that method is. However, I have already admitted to you that, no, logic and reason cannot rule out the baseless claim that logic and reason may not be able to reach the objective world if it is somehow different from what our senses force us to perceive. And on that note…. And better yet, why give credit to criticisms of a certain thought process for being unable to allow humans to do that which is by its nature impossible, anyway?
You do realize that Serlock Holmes is a fictional literature characture? Secondly, I think I get what is making your stumble. You think you know what a dog IS so your having problems with the entire concept. However, this is because the number of options for what a specific dog may be is limited by the number of species.
Your point was that you could prove what something is by ruling out what it is not. Created kind Flood geology Creationist cosmologies Intelligent design. History Creation myth Public education "Teach the Controversy". Darwin's finches by John Gould. Key topics. Introduction to evolution Evidence of evolution Common descent Evidence of common descent. Processes and outcomes. Natural history. History of evolutionary theory.
Fields and applications. Applications of evolution Biosocial criminology Ecological genetics Evolutionary aesthetics Evolutionary anthropology Evolutionary computation Evolutionary ecology Evolutionary economics Evolutionary epistemology Evolutionary ethics Evolutionary game theory Evolutionary linguistics Evolutionary medicine Evolutionary neuroscience Evolutionary physiology Evolutionary psychology Experimental evolution Phylogenetics Paleontology Selective breeding Speciation experiments Sociobiology Systematics Universal Darwinism.
Social implications. Evolution as fact and theory Social effects Creation—evolution controversy Objections to evolution Level of support. See also: History of the creation—evolution controversy and History of evolutionary thought. See also: Reactions to On the Origin of Species. Main article: History of creationism. See also: Creation and evolution in public education. Main article: Scopes Trial. State , S. Main article: Epperson v.
Main article: Daniel v. Main article: Creation science. Main article: McLean v. Main article: Edwards v. Main article: Intelligent design. See also: Neo-creationism , Intelligent design movement , Teach the Controversy , and Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns.
Main article: Kansas evolution hearings. Main article: Kitzmiller v. See also: Creation and evolution in public education and Intelligent design in politics. Main article: Young Earth creationism. See also: Creation science and Flood geology. Main article: Old Earth creationism. See also: Gap creationism , Day-age creationism , and Progressive creationism. Main article: Neo-creationism. See also: Intelligent design. Main article: Theistic evolution. Main article: Evolution as theory and fact.
See also: Objection to evolution on the basis that it is a religion. See also: Objection to evolution's moral implications. Main article: Common descent. See also: Evidence of common descent and Tree of life biology. Main articles: Human evolution , Homo , and Human taxonomy. See also: Paleoanthropology and Adam and Eve. Main article: Macroevolution. See also: Speciation.
Main article: Transitional fossil. See also: List of transitional fossils , Bird evolution , and Evolution of the horse. Main article: Flood geology. See also: Geochronology and Age of the Earth. See also: Age of the universe. See also: radiometric dating. Main article: Quote mining. Main article: Creation and evolution in public education. See also: Teach the Controversy. See also: Relationship between religion and science , Catholic Church and evolution , Allegorical interpretations of Genesis , and Evolutionary argument against naturalism.
This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. June See also: Politics of creationism and Santorum Amendment. See also: Islamic views on evolution. Main article: Outline of the creation—evolution controversy. Acceptance of evolution by religious groups Anti-intellectualism Clergy Letter Project Creation and evolution in public education Evolutionary origin of religions Hindu views on evolution Jainism and non-creationism Jewish views on evolution Mormon views on evolution Objections to evolution Project Steve Relationship between religion and science Stereotypes of Americans TalkOrigins Teach the Controversy Theology of creationism and evolution.
Retrieved Washington, D. February 16, Archived from the original PDF on Some bills seek to discredit evolution by emphasizing so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution or 'disagreements' within the scientific community. Others insist that teachers have absolute freedom within their classrooms and cannot be disciplined for teaching non-scientific 'alternatives' to evolution.
A number of bills require that students be taught to 'critically analyze' evolution or to understand 'the controversy. The current controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution is not a scientific one. Dover Area School District , 04 cv M. December 20, Whether ID Is Science, p. November GSA Today. Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary. Evolution Brief E2. Archived from the original PDF on 29 November Context, p. The Washington Post. November 16, Renka's Home Page.
Round Rock, TX. The New York Times. Natural History. Introduction, pp. Jewish Tradition and the Challenge of Darwinism. University of Chicago Press. May—June Reports of the National Center for Science Education. News coverage of the creationism-versus-evolution debate tends to focus on the United States But in the past 5 years, political clashes over the issue have also occurred in countries all across Europe. USA Today.
Religion News Service. The Atlantic. Omaha, NE: Gallup, Inc. John van Wyhe. Darwin Correspondence Project Dramatisation script.
Göz önünde bulundurulacak daha fazla başlık
Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge. Darwin Correspondence Project. Archived from the original on Many Christians may have held on to a literal six days of creation, [ original research? Exceptions are also noted [ by whom? White — The observation that evolutionary critics had a relaxed interpretation of Genesis is supported by specifically enumerating: Louis Agassiz — ; Arnold Henry Guyot — ; John William Dawson — ; Enoch Fitch Burr — ; George D.
Morris — ; H. Hastings ? Townsend — ; Alexander Patterson , Presbyterian evangelist. The Independent. Retrieved 10 July American Anthropologist. After the Scopes trial of July legislators abandoned efforts to enact "Butler Acts" in other jurisdictions. See : Pierce, J. Kingston August American History. Describes the Florida and Oklahoma acts.
Scientific American. January 17, Thus, Scopes' constitutional defense on establishment grounds rested solely on the state constitution. See : Court Opinion of Scopes' Trial See generally Incorporation doctrine and Everson v. Board of Education seminal U. Supreme Court opinion finally applying the Establishment Clause against states in Kerr, Orin July 26, The Volokh Conspiracy Book review. The constitutional case was largely based on state constitutional law; this was before most of the Bill of Rights had been incorporated and applied to the states.
Review of Edward J. Cantwell v. Cookson , p. Constitutional Rights Foundation. The Court stated in its opinion that "England and Scotland maintained State churches as did some of the Colonies, and it was intended by this clause of the Constitution [the Religious Preference Clause] to prevent any such undertaking in Tennessee.
Center for Inquiry. TalkOrigins Archive Post of the Month. Palmetto, FL: Wesley R. Arkansas , U. November 12, The American Biology Teacher. National Center for Science Education. August 28, Center for Science and Culture. Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute. July 7, Associated Press. August 2, International Herald Tribune. February 13, People for the American Way. Curriculum, Conclusion, p. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.
The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. Disclaimer, p. The American Prospect. Meyer directs the center; former Reagan adviser Bruce Chapman heads the larger institute, with input from the Christian supply-sider and former American Spectator owner George Gilder also a Discovery senior fellow. From this perch, the ID crowd has pushed a 'teach the controversy' approach to evolution that closely influenced the Ohio State Board of Education's recently proposed science standards, which would require students to learn how scientists 'continue to investigate and critically analyze' aspects of Darwin's theory.
February 27, A Response to Eugenie Scott". New York: Metanexus Institute. The clarion call of the intelligent design movement is to 'teach the controversy. Bibcode : Sci Answers in Genesis. Los Angeles Times. Biological Society of Washington. October 4, Evolution vs. Creationism: an Introduction. Retrieved 3 June Creationism is about maintaining particular, narrow forms of religious belief — beliefs that seem to their adherents to be threatened by the very idea of evolution.
Aguillard: U. Supreme Court Decision". TalkOrigins Archive. The Quarterly Review of Biology. Stump, eds. Peters and Hewlett argue that the atheism of many evolutionary supporters must be removed from the debate. September The New York Times Magazine : 1—4. The Humanist. Moran, Laurence Selman v.
Cobb County School District , F. Dawkins, Richard December 3, Now with Bill Moyers Interview. Interviewed by Bill Moyers. In Zalta, Edward N ed. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Winter ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Popper described the demarcation problem as the 'key to most of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science. Instead he proposed as a criterion that the theory be falsifiable, or more precisely that 'statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations'.
Popper presented this proposal as a way to draw the line between statements belonging to the empirical sciences and 'all other statements — whether they are of a religious or of a metaphysical character, or simply pseudoscientific'. It was both an alternative to the logical positivists' verification criteria and a criterion for distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. May 22, Science Letter. Creation Research Society Quarterly Abstract. Retrieved , as quoted by Numbers , p. November 2, Massimo Pigliucci September—October Skeptical Inquirer.
- I BET YOU WIN.
- Building Faith in Christ.
- How to Attract More Friends, Sales, Money and Success with Facebook Pages.
- Chinas Accession to the World Trade Organization: National and International Perspectives.
Retrieved , p. Richard Dawkins quoting J. Arkansas Board of Education". TalkOrigins Archive Transcription. February Impact : i—iv. July—August Crisis Magazine. February 15, Bibcode : NW Ex Nihilo. Why is it necessary to have such organizations? One thing we have come to realise in Creation Science is that the Lord has not just called us to knock down evolution, but to help in restoring the foundation of the Gospel in our society.
We believe that if the churches took up the tool of Creation Evangelism in society, not only would we see a stemming of the tide of humanistic philosophy, but we would also see the seeds of revival sown in a culture which is becoming increasingly more pagan each day. The Fallacy Files. Greencastle, IN: Gary Curtis. Johnson cites three pages spent in Isaac Asimov 's New Guide to Science that take creationists to task, while only spending one half page on evidence of evolution. Ars Technica. Hebron, KY: Answers in Genesis.
May Back to Genesis : a—c. All Things Considered. July 10, October 15, Bibcode : PNAS December Genome Research. New Scientist. Wildman, Derek E. June 10, Bibcode : PNAS.. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. Summer Creation Evolution Journal. Retrieved 31 March Gould quotes from Hayward Ewan; Barnes, Lawrence G.
Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. Porto April Astronomy and Astrophysics. Russell October June 20, February 6, Gondwana Research. Gainesville, Florida: Joseph Meert. American Scientific Affiliation. Ipswich, MA. October 31, No Answers in Genesis! May 25, The New England Journal of Medicine. That this controversy is one largely manufactured by the proponents of creationism and intelligent design may not matter, and as long as the controversy is taught in classes on current affairs, politics, or religion, and not in science classes, neither scientists nor citizens should be concerned.
AAAS More than 70, Australian scientists " January November 25, January—February Journal of Heredity. Ayala stated that "Dobzhansky was a religious man. February 22, February 11, [Originally published November 28, ]. NBC News. The Guardian. London: Guardian Media Group. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Archived from the original on December 10, Retrieved August 27, The Tampa Tribune.
BBC News. London: BBC. September 9, The Daily Telegraph. London: Telegraph Media Group. New Scientist Feedback. November 10, March 4, Herald Sun. Melbourne: The Herald and Weekly Times. One Man's Crusade". The Economist. London: The Economist Newspaper Limited. April 19, This article gives a worldwide overview of recent developments on the subject of the controversy.
Barbour, Ian G. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco. Burns, Edward M. New York: W. Dawkins, Richard Illustrations by Liz Pyle 1st American ed. Illustrations by Lalla Ward. New York: Basic Books. Dembski, William A. Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James Dewey, John In Gardner, Martin ed. Great Essays in Science. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Dixon, Thomas New York: Oxford University Press. Gray, Asa Darwiniana: Essays and Reviews Pertaining to Darwinism.
New York: D. Ham, Ken Hayward, Alan Creation and Evolution: The Facts and the Fallacies. London: Triangle. Hoagland, Mahlon B. Hodge, Charles What is Darwinism? New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Company. Huls, Jessica; Baker, Catherine Miller, James B. Feedback by Stephen Kolderup. Huxley, Thomas Henry [Originally published ].
Science and Christian Tradition: Essays. Isaak, Mark The Counter-Creationism Handbook Rev. Johnson, Phillip E. Darwin on Trial 2nd ed. Larson, Edward J. New York: Modern Library. Morris, Henry M. Scientific Creationism. Prepared by the technical staff and consultants of the Institute for Creation Research. Prepared by the technical staff and consultants of the Institute for Creation Research 2nd ed.
National Academy of Sciences National Academy of Sciences; Institute of Medicine Science, Evolution, and Creationism. Lincoln, NE: toExcel Press. Numbers, Ronald L. New York: Alfred A. Darwinism Comes to America. Phillips, Kevin New York: Viking. Pigliucci, Massimo Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates. Plimer, Ian Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism. London: Fontana. Relethford, John H. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Ruse, Michael Salhany, Roger E. The Origin of Rights. Toronto: Carswell. Sarkar, Sahotra; Pfeifer, Jessica, eds. The Philosophy of Science. New York: Psychology Press. Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction. Foreword by Niles Eldredge 1st pbk. Shermer, Michael Foreword by Stephen Jay Gould Rev. New York: A. Stringer, Chris ; Andrews, Peter The Complete World of Human Evolution.
Life—How did it get here? Witham, Larry A. Woods, Thomas E.
- Similar authors to follow.
- creationism vs the lightbulb atheist musings Manual!
- Reward Yourself.
- At His Hands: Part I Take Me?
- Samsara Tarot Ebook!
- Buying Options!
- The First Stone (A.D. Scrolls).
Zacharias, Ravi K. Nashville, TN: Word Publishing. Books Burian, Richard M. In Adams, Mark B. Butler, Samuel [Originally published ]. London: A. Darwin, Charles Beer, Gillian ed. On the Origin of Species. The World's Classics.
Creationism vs. the Lightbulb
Introduction by Gillian Beer. New York: Free Press. Dobzhansky, Theodosius [Originally published ]. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Introduction by Stephen Jay Gould. New York: Columbia University Press. Ecker, Ronald L. Haught, John F.