Non-Sense of Macro Evolutionary Faith

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, Sep 26, 2020.

  1. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    It is not an assumption as much as it is a practical convenience.
    No, I repeat, it is a practical approach to investigating the universe. It is methodological naturalism. i.e. we decide we shall only investigate those matters that are likely to have a natural explanation because science is not well suited to investigate matters that occur without regard for the laws of nature.
    No. Abiogenesis is a descriptive terms that covers a suite of hypotheses to account for the origin of life. Indeed the account of creation in the Bible is one of the hypotheses of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis simply means that life arose from non-life. In Genesis God created man from the dust of the Earth. Correct? That's life from non-life - abiogenesis. If you deny abiogenesis you deny Genesis.
    If someone declares that they are 100% certain that abiogenesis occurred you might describe it as a faith position, I would call it a silly idea. The correct position on abiogenesis is to note that, based upon current evidence, it seems that one or more chemical processes led, over time, to increasing complexity of autocatalytic chemical cycles that eventually merged into life.
    The only assumption here is your assumption that you understand what is meant by macroevolution.

    Assassination is not necessary when an individual commits character suicide through repeated displays of intellectual dishonesty. Shame on you.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    I gave you clear evidence and you rejected that evidence because it challenges you to think outside the little box you have placed yourself in, and it actually threatens your faith.

    The recurring Anti-Scientific view often displayed here is...

    Something is not true because it cannot be true.
    No investigation needed.

    That is an Un-Scientific approach, and is even Anti-Scientific.

    This is exactly where Science is today in a few fields of study. There is a very Anti-Science mindset embedded within Science itself.

    Peer Review has been corrupted to become Peer Pressure. Authority, and Atheistic faith dogmas, are both used to halt thought. Well, at least you all helped me make that point a little bit sharper. Thanks guys!

    According to you all, any Scientist would jump at the chance to investigate something like this, and would be eager to upset the apple cart.

    Your Claims are False!
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2020 at 4:26 PM
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Ancient people hunting dinosaurs? That would mean that all of the theories scientists have regarding the extinction of dinosaurs are wrong, it was humans who made the dinosaurs go extinct.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Let me take a shot at these...

    Metaphysical naturalism certainly is.

    Methodological naturalism is more of a heuristic premise in my opinion. It's the idea that if our knowledge is restricted to what we can know through natural means, then our theorizing probably should stick to what we can know. The justification here would seem to be epistemological.

    Most Sciforums participants don't seem to distinguish between metaphysical and methodological naturalism. You seem to be ignoring the distinction yourself.

    Yes, I agree with that generally speaking.

    Well, life seems to have had some kind of origin, somewhere and somehow. If we accept big bang cosmology, the big bang doesn't seem consistent with the existence of life.

    Divine creation is abiogenesis if there wasn't life (in the biological sense) and then 'poof!' there was, through the agency of something that isn't biological life.

    Naturalistic abiogenesis certainly seems to be a hypothesis. (One that I personally embrace.) It turns into a faith position when people behave as if it's something more than a hypothesis, when they opt to behave as if it was an established fact. We see that here on Sciforums.

    Whether it's "provable" would seem to depend on what kind of premises we are trying to derive it from.

    I personally think that there's lots of evidence in macroevolution's favor, ranging from the fossil record through biogeography, comparative anatomy, to genomics. But none of it actually proves macroevolution.

    It looks like an explanatory hypothesis to me. It's a conceptual framework that enables us to make better sense of what is observed and to answer many questions that arise. It's probably the most important explanatory framework in the biological sciences.

    But sure, it can turn into a faith dogma when the fact that it's an explanatory hypothesis is ignored and it's treated as a dogma that must be believed (or else) based on little more than authority.

    I still don't understand why it's so important to so many people that everyone else treat science as a set of dogmas. By the time it trickles down to the person on the street, science bears more similarity to religion than many would like to admit.

    We see it right here on Sciforums. In a way it's all that Sciforums is these days. There's very little scientific discussion here, but constant and zealous defense of the faith against heretics and heathens.
    SetiAlpha6 likes this.
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    You provided fraudulent evidence because you are a fraud.

    ... entirely from you.

    Liar, your forgeries were exposed by scientists.

    Yes, fully and completely from YOU.

    Lies beget more lies. Again, if you can't even speak the truth for a single moment, no one here is going to take you seriously.

    Yes, we know what scientists have accomplished. We also know what creationists like yourself have accomplished.

    So, now you've finally come to the point in which your only argument is projection of your own intellectually dishonesty. You sir, are a cad.
  9. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    There are two other possibilites:
    • Smart troll
    • Dumb drone
  10. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Thanks So Much, it is always refreshing for me to read your wise comments!!!
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Sometimes, I get the impression that Seti is also Jan Ardena and Vociferous considering no two of them post at the same time and all three appear to have almost identical anti-science views.
  12. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Is it so wrong to stand up to the anti-science, faith based zealot who only wants to destroy knowledge, understanding and facts in favor of their ancient mythical gods notion of how to think and live? Or, should we just kowtow to their demands of tossing out science in schools, making sure children grow up to hate learning about the world around them and instead, feed the vicious circle of ignorance and deceit that is their faith?

    What would you suggest we do?

    When there is a constant flow of misrepresentation, fraud, deception and outright lies from right wing fanatics that are so deluded they've divorced themselves from reality on a science forum, who would want to stay here? In fact, I've noticed that the small group of folks who still post here has grown smaller.

    Perhaps, you missed the memo, Trump has been in power these past 4 years, the right is in control of the government and is feeding the very same misrepresentation, fraud, deception and outright lies to the entire country. Facts have taken a hike in favor of propaganda and many folks are gobbling it up. Do you suggest we sit by and just let it happen?
    Hipparchia likes this.
  13. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    I'm inclined to agree, more or less.

    So why is any suggestion that the scope of reality might be broader than the scope of the physical sciences met with such visceral hostility? Why all the insults and ridicule? Methodological naturalism certainly doesn't imply that the scope of the physical sciences is all that there is and all that can possibly be. But metaphysical naturalism says exactly that. I get the impression that many people of the atheistic persuasion implicitly assume metaphysical naturalism but only admit to being methodological naturalists because it's easier to defend.

    The word 'abiogenesis' literally means 'life from non-life'. And in the context that we are discussing it, 'life' means biological life, as opposed to hypothetical spiritual life, whatever that might be. So God wouldn't appear to be a biological organism and hence divine creation would be supernatural abiogenesis. So I agree with you.

    I think that it's clear that the ancient Hebrews were thinking of 'life' as meaning a supernatural animating principle present in living things that made non-living matter alive. That kind of idea didn't fade away until modern times and it was still very prevalent in the 19th century. So in the ancients' minds, if that animating principle came from God, if God "breathed" it into the organisms that he created from inert dirt/matter, they didn't see any huge distinction in kind between biological life and divine "life". Today we do.

    And yes, I agree that if Seti wants to argue against the whole idea of life-from-nonlife, and doesn't want to embrace some form of supernatural animating vitalism, then he would seem to have created a problem for himself.

    But I sense that his target is naturalistic abiogenesis, particularly in its more dismissive and doctrinaire forms. If we don't really know how life originated, the assumption that it must have originated naturally would seem to just be a hypothetical assumption. At best a methodological assumption that the biological sciences use to create an origin-of-life research program. If that's so, then use of abiogenesis by atheists as a weapon to dismiss more supernatural accounts wouldn't seem to work. I think that's Seti's point and I'm inclined to be sympathetic with it.

    Maybe. That's my own assumption, but I'm not sure how strongly the evidence drives it. It's more along the lines of a heuristic assumption that defines a research program in the biological sciences. And if it's something that I don't actually know, I'm most comfortable being honest about that.

    Resorting to insults is just an indication that one doesn't have anything better to say.
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2020 at 5:24 PM
  14. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    Accidental double post deleted.
  15. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Is it acceptable that Seti continues to insult our intelligence? Should we respect that?
  16. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

    Your otherwise excellent post is marred by this error. The remark fails in two ways:
    • My comments, which you described as an insult, are an accurate, objective description of Seti's posting behaviour. Do you dispute thathe has been intellectually dishonest?
    • When an individual has been repeatedly offered substantive, evidence based refutation of their assertions, but continues to make those assertions, then insults may become the only viable response (given that no action is not a response).
  17. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Since Yazata is a Trump voter, he is presumably fine with all that.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (Q) likes this.
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Nope. You have provided no argument whatsoever that your claim is true. (And posting links to videos is not making an argument.) If you can post any sort of a logical, supportable argument, great - that's something we can discuss. Until then, you're just another flat Earther who has been brainwashed by seductive Youtube videos.
    More like -

    Something is likely not true because there is no evidence for it, and all the evidence we have proves that it is not true.
    Which means the onus is on the person claiming it to prove it.

    Let's say someone walks up to you and says "I am the King of the World and demand $1 million in taxes!" Would you hand over $1 million - or at least all the money you had? Would you start investigating and spend weeks working to determine whether or not he is actually the King of the World?

    Or would you say "sorry, buddy, not giving you any money?"
    They did. Specifically, Phil Senter (paleontologist) and Sally J. Cole (archaeologist) investigated the "dinosaur" petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge and found them bogus.
  19. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    I provided evidence, and you rejected that evidence.

    That is your choice.

    The evidence I provided is in Peru, not at the Kachina Bridge.

    I accept the Peru evidence I provided at face value.
    And I find the implications to be quite obvious, not obscure at all. It is so plain even a child can understand it instantly.

    That is the way I see it and that is my choice.

    So we simply disagree.
  20. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    I am really glad you are here in this thread, you have helped me make some of my points more effectively than I ever could have without you.

    Please keep up the insults and abuse!

    It’s been really great!!!
  21. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Ah! The Peru stones.

    Story of them:

    In 1890 archaeologists started excavating in the Ica province in Peru. They found carved stones (among other things.) The stones depicted fish, flowers and a llama, and several other scenes that you might expect from ancient Peru. You can't date stones but from where they were found they figured they went back a few thousand years.

    In 1966 archaeologist Santiago Agurto Calvo found a carved stone in a tomb. The body COULD be dated, and thus they had a date for the first time - between 600 and 1000 AD. Again it was a pretty ordinary stone with a flower on it. He published his findings in 1968. This generated some interest in the stones.

    In 1966 a Peruvian doctor (Javier Cabrera Darquea) found a stone with a picture of a fish. He was intrigued. He announced he would pay good money for people who could sell him such stones. Two brothers (Carlos and Pablo Soldi) sold him thousands of stones. Some had carvings of spaceships and dinosaurs on them. Darquea wondered about this; how did archeologists miss these thousands of stones? But he knew a good moneymaking scheme when he saw one, so he published a book about how humanity was 400 million years old and had come from aliens who had visited Earth in a spaceship. He explained that "though the transplantation of cognitive codes to highly intelligent primates, the men from outer space created new men on earth." In 1996 he opened a museum and made a lot of money showing off the stones.

    Meanwhile other people became curious about how the two brothers found all those stones. They investigated. When pressed, they said they had bought them from a farmer who found them in his field. This farmer, Basilio Uschuya, was also making good money by selling stones.

    In 1973, during an interview, Uschuya admitted to faking them so he could sell them. In 1975, he (and another farmer the brothers had bought rocks from) explained that they created the stones by copying images from comic books. They said they used a dentist's drill to create the stones, then baked them in cow dung to make them look old and weathered.

    And that's where the Peru stones came from.
  22. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Yes, I am aware of those stones, but I do not believe they are legitimate.

    Hey we agree!!!

    In Peru, the evidence I presented was a pictograph of a very clear dinosaur surrounded by 9 ancient warriors with spears.
  23. billvon Valued Senior Member

    OK let's see it.

Share This Page