Evolution V Creation

[rjh4 is back]

My first principle(s) is/are, perhaps - I am here, I am alive. I cannot know anything for absolutely certain including my own existence, the fact that I'm here - and I can't even absolutely know that I can't absolutely know anything. Life is probabilistic as far as I am concerned, I experience my life subjectively - how else? - through my own judgement(s) - how else? - what I consider to be valid reasons to believe I deem as evidence.... and I just live my life and do what I think is right.

EvF

If you cannot know anything for certain, I guess you wouldn't even know how good your probability assessments are. So while you might think that one thing is more probable than another, you really don't know. So while you may think that it is more probable that God does not exist, you cannot even say this with any certainty as it might really be more probable that God exists (speaking from within your own worldview).

[Zen Badger]

Then my first principle is that the world is what the evidence that science has discovered says it is.

First, that statement sounds noble but it certainly is not very clear as to what it actually means (see below).

Second, the statement suffers from the fallacy of reification since science does not discover or say anything, scientists do. And if you mean scientists, then my question would be which ones and how do you decide based on what "science says"?

Third, then your whole worldview is based on a moving first principle since the conclusions in science change all the time. I guess your world view is totally in the hands of others (scientists) and what a majority(???) of them happen to decide about the universe and the meaning of life at any particular point in time. How do you go about finding out what you actually believe on any particular day?

Fourth, I guess that would rule out using logic since as far as I know, logic is not based on some scientific experiment or effort. Alternatively, if science uses logic but logic was a result of the scientific method, then how do you have any confidence in either as it all sounds quite circular? Oh, but mentioning circularity is mentioning a logical fallacy but if your worldview cannot account for logic, I wonder how it deals with logical fallacies.

Fifth, I guess that would rule out using mathematics for the same reasons set forth above for logic.

Sixth, even if you consider morals a relative thing, how does the scientific method provide you with a basis for making any moral decisions?

As far as I can tell, your first principle does not provide any of the preconditions for knowing or deciding anything. It certainly is not a first principle that I would want to follow.

Yes, like most christians you require absolute certainty in you life.

Science(as a body of endevour and knowledge) changes its worldview all the time,

how can it not? as advancing technology improves our ability to probe the universe and its secrets

we have to change our view.

Astronomy has shown us that our planet is not the centre of the universe, a "Truth" that was

known for thousands of years, would you take anyone seriously if they maintained now that the Earth

was still the universal centre?

As to logical fallacies, have a shot at Quantum Mechanics. Just leave your common sense at the door.

But one Truth that is indisputable is that the universe is Billions of years old.

And all the physical sciences agree on that.

I don't have a problem with a changing worldview.

Think about it, is your worldview now the same as it was when you were five?

[tackattack]

absolute certainty is a myth to me, so I'm glad you qualified that statement.

[rjh4 is back]

Yes, like most christians you require absolute certainty in you life.

What makes you think that?

As to logical fallacies, have a shot at Quantum Mechanics. Just leave your common sense at the door.

How is that a response to anything I said?

I don't have a problem with a changing worldview.

Think about it, is your worldview now the same as it was when you were five?

That is a good point. My worldview has changed over the years.

I noticed you did not respond to my argument that your worldview doesn't appear to be able to accound for logic, mathematics, and morals (relative or otherwise).

[Zen Badger]

I noticed you did not respond to my argument that your worldview doesn't appear to be able to accound for logic, mathematics, and morals (relative or otherwise).

And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

[Minimalist]

While the xtians engage in mental masturbation, science calmly marches on.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/1...in-action/

On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who’d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.

This miniature evolutionary saga is described in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It’s authored by Peter and Rosemary Grant, a husband-and-wife team who have spent much of the last 36 years studying a group of bird species known collectively as Darwin’s finches.

[rjh4 is back]

I noticed you did not respond to my argument that your worldview doesn't appear to be able to accound for logic, mathematics, and morals (relative or otherwise).

And how do you arrive at that conclusion?

If you think you have, Zen, please point out the lines in your post that demonstrates how your worldview accounts for logic, mathematics, and morals (relative or otherwise) as I did not see where you did such a thing.

---

While the xtians engage in mental masturbation, science calmly marches on.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/1...in-action/

On one of the Galapagos islands whose finches shaped the theories of a young Charles Darwin, biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species splits in two.

In many ways, the split followed predictable patterns, requiring a hybrid newcomer who’d already taken baby steps down a new evolutionary path. But playing an unexpected part was chance, and the newcomer singing his own special song.

This miniature evolutionary saga is described in a paper published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It’s authored by Peter and Rosemary Grant, a husband-and-wife team who have spent much of the last 36 years studying a group of bird species known collectively as Darwin’s finches.

Not sure how this has anything to do with what is being discussed. It certainly doesn't have to do with anything I have said or believe as I have been abundantly clear that I do not have a problem with evolution (insofar as it means things change), nor do I have a problem with speciation. These are not contrary to a Christian position.

[Tiberius]

Not sure how this has anything to do with what is being discussed. It certainly doesn't have to do with anything I have said or believe as I have been abundantly clear that I do not have a problem with evolution (insofar as it means things change), nor do I have a problem with speciation. These are not contrary to a Christian position.

No, you just have a problem with inferring speciation and change on humanity, which unfortunately is how nature works. You just deny reality.

[Minimalist]

These are not contrary to a Christian position.

I know any number of xtians who would gladly kill you for making such a claim!

[Zen Badger]

If you think you have, Zen, please point out the lines in your post that demonstrates how your worldview accounts for logic, mathematics, and morals (relative or otherwise) as I did not see where you did such a thing.

---

That was not my question R.

I was asking how you arrived at the conclusion that logic etc does not fit into my world view.

But none of this is germane to the discussion at hand.

So again I ask you, where is your evidence for a young earth?