Freethought & Rationalism Archive

espritch · 07-08-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

I knew that some of you were shocked to read this bold statement of mine. Some of you maybe laugh. Of course, I laugh, too!

I don't think any of us were the least bit shocked. Around 2 Billion people on this planet claim to be Christians of one sort or another. Such a declaration is hardly shocking. It is, however, irrelevant to the question of whether or not you can prove that evolutionary theory is supernatural.

Quote:

But since I am a Christian, it is not commanded to us by our God in the Bible to fool people just to gain profit of any sort.

I'm glad your God doesn't command you to fool people to gain profit (I guess that commandment only applies to Television Evangelists). But I don't see how this bears any relation to your claim that evolutionary theory is supernatural.

Quote:

I love science and since science had done a lot of good things to me and to the world, (and I believe that our God is using good science to improve human condition)

You can believe in the tooth fairy for all I care. This still have no bearing on the question at hand.

Quote:

then, we had to make science the real naturalistic science, if the agreed limit of science is for natural explanation only. I always believed that real science (to be taught in schools and in public) must be reliable, realistic, empirical and natural. For the purpose of simplicity, clarity and balance to all human.

I actually agree with this. I hope that means your are getting to your point.

Quote:

ALL of us agreed that science must deal with naturalistic explanation only. Beyond what nature itself/herself can do is already supernatural. And since our topic of discussion is Evolution Theory, then, we need to see if this theory is really inclined to naturalistic view of science. But when we say “natural explanation”, strictly speaking, where should we look for? Whom should we look for? Who is authorized to say that this is natural and this is not natural?

Simply put, a "natural explanation" is one that involves observable and testible mechanisms and evidence.

Quote:

Since natural explanation is invoking the presence and participation of nature, then, logically and strictly speaking, nature itself/herself should settle this problem. So, logically and reasonably speaking, nature MUST DIRECTLY communicates to human scientists or vise versa and guarantees that what human scientists are seeing are really caused by nature. For if “nature’s guarantee” is not present in naturalistic explanation of science presented to us by human Evolution Theory scientists, then, we cannot simply label science explanation as “natural”.

I.e. there must be observable and testible mechanisms and evidence. There is, of course, no other way nature can communicate in any meaningful sense with human scientists.

Quote:

In another words, “nature”, yes, literally, “nature” must literally speak to human scientists. Or the human scientists literally must make a dialogue to “nature” and ask them if the observed changes in some animals are really caused by her/it and if they are calling it Theory of Evolution.

What the hell? Are you claiming mother nature must show up and formally address us? I think this discussion just went seriously of the rails.

Quote:

OR the human scientists will transform themselves into the concerned specified species in consideration, interact with those species’ world, ask scientific and logical questions, and transform back again to humans, and presented their findings to human.

You really have no clue what science is or how it works. Scientists don't have to turn themselves into sub-atomic particles to test quantum theory. Nor do they require sub atomic particles to directly address them to ascertain their existence. They don't have to turn themselves into stars to test theories of stellar evolution. They don't have to turn themselves into viruses to test the effectiveness of vaccines. Your assertion makes no sense whatsoever.

Quote:

This is natural explanation and natural processes, basically. This is the hard evidence that we can get from nature and present this to human society to guarantee that our science explanation is really natural.

No. Observable phenomenon and testible mechanisms are the hard evidence on which all scientific theories are based.

Quote:

For if we don’t have this/these hard evidence/s, then, what we are reading/studying/teaching in our human science is a supernatural scripted explanation of nature by Evolution Theory proponents only, labeled by Evolution Theory proponents as natural, presented in human society as natural. But in fact they are all supernatural, fable, pokemon styled, and mythological in explanation.

Nothing you have previously stated supports this conclusion. In fact, it supports no conclusion at all as it makes no sense.

Quote:

It is illogical and simply unreasonable to animate the inanimate nature and say that this is “natural” and called it naturalistic science. It is actually being done in cartoons, Walt Disney’s movies, Pokemon animes, Aessop’s fable stories, and the likes, and we can’t called them science!
So basically, Evolution Theory is inclined to supernatural, fable, pokemon style, and myth.

This was nonsense the first time you stated it. It is still nonsense.

Hawkeye · 07-08-2007, 04:33 PM

[QUOTE=samurai;4598686]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Hi,

What exactly do you mean by "direct participation of nature"? If you study a natural phenomenon then obviously it is "participating" in said phenomenon.

Quote:

No, you are incorrect. When you study nature, it doesn't participate. You are the one who is doing all the gatherings, analyzing and giving conclusion.

What, then, do you put into the word "participate" here? How/when/why are nature participating? Is participation a conscious decicion by nature?

Quote:

Maybe you are right, but basically you are wrong. You are only bias to yourself. It is round reasoning.

??? :huh:

Quote:

LOOK: Naturalistic science had already labeled humans as animals, why not ask every human if they really evolve or created or not? If both nature and species (except humans) can't talk, why bother to make them as standard in changes of species?! HUMANS can talk, can express themselves...then, ask them. If they all say that they had evolved from lower forms of animals, then, it is natural that humans are the product of evolution process! Then, Evolution is really natural.

Why is the ability to talk a requirement for being a standard of anything? And why does the opinion of people in regards to mankinds origin have anything to do with their actual origin?

LOOK: I have no idea what you're talking about and several other posters have said the same thing. That's a pretty good indication that your arguments are incomprehensible. Perhaps you have a point in there somewhere but it's lost in your word salad.

ericmurphy · 07-08-2007, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hawkeye

Hi,

What exactly do you mean by "direct participation of nature"? If you study a natural phenomenon then obviously it is "participating" in said phenomenon.

No, you are incorrect. When you study nature, it doesn't participate. You are the one who is doing all the gatherings, analyzing and giving conclusion. Maybe you are right, but basically you are wrong. You are only bias to yourself. It is round reasoning.

LOOK: Naturalistic science had already labeled humans as animals, why not ask every human if they really evolve or created or not? If both nature and species (except humans) can't talk, why bother to make them as standard in changes of species?! HUMANS can talk, can express themselves...then, ask them. If they all say that they had evolved from lower forms of animals, then, it is natural that humans are the product of evolution process! Then, Evolution is really natural.

So, we should ask humans if they evolve, and if they say "No," then that's it then? You're satisfied that humans don't evolve?

What about mushrooms? What do they have to say about whether they've evolved or not? I guess we'd have to say we don't know, right?

[edit]

Vicious Love · 07-08-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by espritch

I don't think any of us were the least bit shocked. Around 2 Billion people on this planet claim to be Christians of one sort or another. Such a declaration is hardly shocking.

He's Asian, too. I found that pretty impressive.

Hawkeye · 07-08-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calilasseia

I've found an explanation for all of this.

Samurai visited this parody religion site and thought it was real.

Note the Baptist Creation Science Fair page on that site, and one of the projects in the "Honourable Mentions" section:

Quote:

"Pokemon Prove Evolutionism Is False" - Paul Sanborn (grade 4)

Unfortunately samurai didn't realise the entire site was a parody courtesy of the Landover Baptist satire brigade, and bought into everything it told him ...

Maybe he's just pulling our legs here...

espritch · 07-08-2007, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vicious Love

Quote:

Originally Posted by espritch

I don't think any of us were the least bit shocked. Around 2 Billion people on this planet claim to be Christians of one sort or another. Such a declaration is hardly shocking.

He's Asian, too. I found that pretty impressive.

ericmurphy · 07-08-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

People, this is the guy who claimed to have read Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution in four hours, and could find no evidence at all in the entire thing for macroevolution.

In my view, that statement removes any conceivable credibility Samurai could possibly have.

We don't know yet if that observed facts are really evolution, creation or interrelation.

How can you know this if you've never read the damned thing? You've as much as admitted you haven't read it.

Quote:

You called it macroevolution bcause u believe in Evolution as natural science.

I called it macroevolution because that's what it's called. Whether you believe in the reality of macroevolution or not, you don't get to just redefine the words to mean something else.

Quote:

Since I don't (and already proven it)

Proven what? That you don't believe it? Well, I'll take your word for that, but you haven't even come close to proving that macroevolution doesn't happen. You don't even know what the evidence supporting macroevolution is, so how can you possibly say you've "disproven" it?

Quote:

believe that Evolution Theory is not natural then, it must fall to my definition and category.

Detangling your broken English, you're claiming that since you don't believe evolution is "natural," therefore you get to redefine what the term means? Afraid not.

Quote:

UNLESS you prove to me that Evolution is really natural, then, I can agree that those so called facts of macroevolution is really natural.

You said you could prove that evolution is not "natural," whatever that means. Well, let's hear your proof. We're five pages into this thread, and while you've claimed you've proved your point, you have not. You've wandered around the topic since the day before yesterday without making any headway with it at all.

David B · 07-08-2007, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericmurphy

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

We don't know yet if that observed facts are really evolution, creation or interrelation.

How can you know this if you've never read the damned thing? You've as much as admitted you haven't read it.

I called it macroevolution because that's what it's called. Whether you believe in the reality of macroevolution or not, you don't get to just redefine the words to mean something else.

Proven what? That you don't believe it? Well, I'll take your word for that, but you haven't even come close to proving that macroevolution doesn't happen. You don't even know what the evidence supporting macroevolution is, so how can you possibly say you've "disproven" it?

Detangling your broken English, you're claiming that since you don't believe evolution is "natural," therefore you get to redefine what the term means? Afraid not.

Quote:

UNLESS you prove to me that Evolution is really natural, then, I can agree that those so called facts of macroevolution is really natural.

You said you could prove that evolution is not "natural," whatever that means. Well, let's hear your proof. We're five pages into this thread, and while you've claimed you've proved your point, you have not. You've wandered around the topic since the day before yesterday without making any headway with it at all.

You could start by addressing my post 78

David B

Godless Dave · 07-08-2007, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samurai

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadman_932

Sure, here's a question...you said you were going to PROVE your view is correct. Where's this proof?

Argument by redefinition is a fallacy.

I told all of you that I can prove Evolution Theory as supernatural, pokemon styled...etc And I did it.

Where? Certainly not in your post.

Danhalen · 07-08-2007, 07:32 PM

What the fuck just happened?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-08-2007, 07:32 PM	#110
Danhalen Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: NE Ohio Posts: 467	What the fuck just happened?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.