Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Evolution vs. Creation- serious discussion only please

Page 6 of 9 [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Aug 2010, 12:22 am

AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
SoSayWeAll wrote:
Interesting--apparently ANY firm stance on an issue does. Fancy that.

The only one that could not be accused of "closed-mindedness" according that standard (by which any firm decision constitutes having a "closed mind" whereas indecision constitutes an "open mind") would be agnosticism.

Nothing I said was at all closed-minded...I give matters of science their due. Faith does not inhibit me from doing so in the slightest.

What is true closed-mindedness is not the fact that one has made a decision, though. It is far more than that: it is to refuse to even HEAR an opposing argument. I will pay attention to an opposing argument...I may reject it after thinking it over, but that's a very different matter from simply rejecting it for no good reason other than the fact that it isn't mine. Now THAT would be closed-mindedness.


Faith indicates believing something without evidence. That cannot be accommodated in a rational mind.


Finally admitting you are irrational, Sand? ;)


In what way am I irrational?



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

05 Aug 2010, 12:33 am

SoSayWeAll wrote:
What is true closed-mindedness is not the fact that one has made a decision, though. It is far more than that: it is to refuse to even HEAR an opposing argument.

Does that mean that if someone refuses to hear a flat-earth argument, a holocaust denier argument or 911 "truth" argument, is closed minded?

Quote:
I will pay attention to an opposing argument...I may reject it after thinking it over, but that's a very different matter from simply rejecting it for no good reason other than the fact that it isn't mine. Now THAT would be closed-mindedness.

There are some people who are like that.

Quote:
Nothing I said was at all closed-minded...I give matters of science their due. Faith does not inhibit me from doing so in the slightest.

Depending on your faith, and the level of it, faith has historically blinded people, and it can still blind people, so unless your faith does not take your ability to see things properly. The problem with creationists is that their faith blinds them and make them unwilling or uncapable of accepting empirical evidence over an unfalsifiable scriptural belief that is unscientific, and they have no other to resort to ad hocness and intellectualy dishonesty, instead of accepting they can be wrong.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

05 Aug 2010, 2:08 am

Sand wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
SoSayWeAll wrote:
Interesting--apparently ANY firm stance on an issue does. Fancy that.

The only one that could not be accused of "closed-mindedness" according that standard (by which any firm decision constitutes having a "closed mind" whereas indecision constitutes an "open mind") would be agnosticism.

Nothing I said was at all closed-minded...I give matters of science their due. Faith does not inhibit me from doing so in the slightest.

What is true closed-mindedness is not the fact that one has made a decision, though. It is far more than that: it is to refuse to even HEAR an opposing argument. I will pay attention to an opposing argument...I may reject it after thinking it over, but that's a very different matter from simply rejecting it for no good reason other than the fact that it isn't mine. Now THAT would be closed-mindedness.


Faith indicates believing something without evidence. That cannot be accommodated in a rational mind.


Finally admitting you are irrational, Sand? ;)


In what way am I irrational?


I meant that primarily in jest. But since all jokes have a modicum of truth, I'll explain what I meant.

You have said before that "Nothing can be known for sure." This is, I think, at odds with your view that you won't believe anything without evidence if I've understood you correctly. If you don't know anything "for sure," why even believe the evidence that you DO have? You place faith in something, in this case that what you think of as evidence is reliable. You have to answer the question, "What evidence do I have that THIS evidence is correct?" I believe that some degree of faith is required for you to maintain that ideal. And, as you yourself plainly said, "That cannot be accomodated [sic] in a rational mind." In a sense, you are admitting that you are irrational, and I find that amusing.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Aug 2010, 3:39 am

AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
SoSayWeAll wrote:
Interesting--apparently ANY firm stance on an issue does. Fancy that.

The only one that could not be accused of "closed-mindedness" according that standard (by which any firm decision constitutes having a "closed mind" whereas indecision constitutes an "open mind") would be agnosticism.

Nothing I said was at all closed-minded...I give matters of science their due. Faith does not inhibit me from doing so in the slightest.

What is true closed-mindedness is not the fact that one has made a decision, though. It is far more than that: it is to refuse to even HEAR an opposing argument. I will pay attention to an opposing argument...I may reject it after thinking it over, but that's a very different matter from simply rejecting it for no good reason other than the fact that it isn't mine. Now THAT would be closed-mindedness.


Faith indicates believing something without evidence. That cannot be accommodated in a rational mind.


Finally admitting you are irrational, Sand? ;)


In what way am I irrational?


I meant that primarily in jest. But since all jokes have a modicum of truth, I'll explain what I meant.

You have said before that "Nothing can be known for sure." This is, I think, at odds with your view that you won't believe anything without evidence if I've understood you correctly. If you don't know anything "for sure," why even believe the evidence that you DO have? You place faith in something, in this case that what you think of as evidence is reliable. You have to answer the question, "What evidence do I have that THIS evidence is correct?" I believe that some degree of faith is required for you to maintain that ideal. And, as you yourself plainly said, "That cannot be accomodated [sic] in a rational mind." In a sense, you are admitting that you are irrational, and I find that amusing.


Not at all irrational. I have mentioned several times that we do not live in a universe of absolutes. All knowledge is provisional and conditional and we live in an understanding that knowledge is only probable. Many things that we take for granted are merely very highly probable and a great many things are hardly probable at all. Science frequently makes its most radical advances when it discovers that something taken as highly probable is discovered to have a factor which changes everything. Einstein's discoveries were fundamental in that manner. There is no faith involved at all.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Aug 2010, 4:35 am

Sand wrote:
Einstein's discoveries were fundamental in that manner. There is no faith involved at all.


Einstein believed in the existence of the external physical world. He believed his theories talked about things external to our bodies and wills. That is the fundamental faith of science. To wit there is an Out There out there.

ruveyn



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

05 Aug 2010, 2:26 pm

Sand wrote:
Not at all irrational. I have mentioned several times that we do not live in a universe of absolutes.


You did??? Really? When/where? Are you absolutely sure? :shaking2:



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Aug 2010, 5:44 pm

AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
Not at all irrational. I have mentioned several times that we do not live in a universe of absolutes.


You did??? Really? When/where? Are you absolutely sure? :shaking2:


I don't keep track of these remarks. This denial of absolutes is a basic concept to many of my posts I cannot be expected to be responsible for your lack of attention.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

05 Aug 2010, 6:07 pm

Sand wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
Not at all irrational. I have mentioned several times that we do not live in a universe of absolutes.


You did??? Really? When/where? Are you absolutely sure? :shaking2:


I don't keep track of these remarks. This denial of absolutes is a basic concept to many of my posts I cannot be expected to be responsible for your lack of attention.

Neither of you are really going to get anywhere because neither of you are capable of enough clarity to actually outright debunk the other's ideas, or rephrase the other's ideas in a good enough manner to get the real point.



AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

05 Aug 2010, 6:30 pm

Sand wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
Not at all irrational. I have mentioned several times that we do not live in a universe of absolutes.


You did??? Really? When/where? Are you absolutely sure? :shaking2:


I don't keep track of these remarks. This denial of absolutes is a basic concept to many of my posts I cannot be expected to be responsible for your lack of attention.


But you DID make the remarks, right?



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

05 Aug 2010, 6:30 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
Sand wrote:
Not at all irrational. I have mentioned several times that we do not live in a universe of absolutes.


You did??? Really? When/where? Are you absolutely sure? :shaking2:


I don't keep track of these remarks. This denial of absolutes is a basic concept to many of my posts I cannot be expected to be responsible for your lack of attention.

Neither of you are really going to get anywhere because neither of you are capable of enough clarity to actually outright debunk the other's ideas, or rephrase the other's ideas in a good enough manner to get the real point.



Sometimes, like a mental compound fracture, the bone fragments of pure ego protrude in a horrifying way.



danieltaiwan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 154

05 Aug 2010, 6:51 pm

I've always wondered how did the flagellum evolve?



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

05 Aug 2010, 7:27 pm

AngelRho wrote:
You have said before that "Nothing can be known for sure." This is, I think, at odds with your view that you won't believe anything without evidence if I've understood you correctly. If you don't know anything "for sure," why even believe the evidence that you DO have?

No, both views don't conflict with each other, as you think, or claim to think, given that you don't seem to get the idea of how the issue is and what evidence is, apparently. First, evidence is not proof, science does not prove anything, it provides evidence to support hypothesis and theories. Evidence does not equal certainty, so there is no conflict. Scientists recognize that science is fallible, yes, it IS fallible, and it can have errors so it can correct itself eventually.

I believe you may understand this better "Absolute certainty is something we cannot achieve" rather than "Nothing can be known for sure", on the other hand, I somehow doubt it.


Quote:
You place faith in something, in this case that what you think of as evidence is reliable. You have to answer the question, "What evidence do I have that THIS evidence is correct?" I believe that some degree of faith is required for you to maintain that ideal.

The issue is that one 'faith' can be examinated and corroborated by empirical grounds if you are willing and able to, with the other, you cannot. So one is reasonable than the other.

Quote:
And, as you yourself plainly said, "That cannot be accomodated [sic] in a rational mind." In a sense, you are admitting that you are irrational, and I find that amusing.

Not really, scientific skepticism is considered rational and Sand seems to appeal to scientific inquiry, so your claim that he is as irrational, because faith is faith, doesn't really work.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

05 Aug 2010, 8:28 pm

SoSayWeAll wrote:
It is far more than that: it is to refuse to even HEAR an opposing argument. I will pay attention to an opposing argument...I may reject it after thinking it over, but that's a very different matter from simply rejecting it for no good reason other than the fact that it isn't mine. Now THAT would be closed-mindedness.


The problem however, is that the arguments tend to regenerate, and I am confronted by new people who insist that I take time to think their idea over - disregarding the fact that I've rejected it a thousand times before. They of course label me close minded for this.

It is especially galling when someone in the intellectual prime of their life is promulgating some concept which I considered and actively rejected when I was 12. I don't need to consider the malformed dark age treatise of some random hyper-spiritualist again and again. That they are unable to fathom that their thoughts are neither current nor original, nor particularly clever does not make me close minded.

But good luck convincing them of that.


_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

05 Aug 2010, 9:27 pm

danieltaiwan wrote:
I've always wondered how did the flagellum evolve?


Partly, by random mutation.

ruveyn



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 Aug 2010, 9:47 pm

Orwell wrote:
Ah, I just found this. So, contrary to ID claims, speciation has been observed in the lab, primarily in drosophila.


Your link just lists a lot of examples of speciation. However, you assert that an Intelligent Design proponent claims that speciation doesn't occur. Which ID proponent has actually made this claim? Name and reference, please, along with a link to the actual passage where this is claimed (if possible).



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

05 Aug 2010, 9:50 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Amazing, a hypothesis is falsifiable but it isn't "science" because of its origin. How does this definition of "science" compare to Sir Karl Popper's?

I would argue that it isn't really well-grounded, nor would it necessarily be falsifiable. After all, it has basically been falsified as Orwell stated, but it is still held to with apparent age theories and stuff like that.


It's not falsifiabe, but it is falsifiable. Gotcha.