...Continued

As I’ve said before, those people only ever relied on natural methodology and found natural explanations for things previously believed to be miraculous, and they only ever succeeded when they didn't allow their religious convictions to inhibit their inquiry.

<<In simpler terms, you could take a bucket of Lego and empty it on the ground, a million or a squillion times, and it will never assemble itself into a Lego house or car.>>

Firstly, lego doesn’t reproduce and doesn’t utilize energy from the sun.

Secondly, (and for the umpteenth time now) evolution isn’t about random chance. Natural selection makes the randomness of mutations into the non-random process of evolution.

I wasn’t joking when I said the 747 in a hurricane analogy was invalid (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9980#162266).

<<If we continue with this materialist philosophy ... Why bother? Couldn’t we let everything go and run its own course, and things will be able to construct themselves?

Imagine how our progress would slow and eventually stop.>>

Our progress hasn’t slowed or stopped yet? Even despite Creationists providing nothing but a distraction.

In fact, the more the churches back-off, the faster we progress.

<<When you speak about those old cranks who started pushing their improvable ideas onto science, were you thinking of Isaac Newton?>>

I wasn’t speaking about anyone in particular. Please re-read my post.

<<Did Newton “stop learning” at this point? Was he someone who had given up (as Bushbasher suggests)?>>

No, and I refer to my point above about natural methodology.

<<Do you or did you really think that science is just a game?>>

You were the one who said that, Dan. Not me.

<<I had trouble interpreting what you were saying. I’ve always optimistically believed that science was a quest for truth.>>

Why the Statement of Faith then?

Dan, do you just run on auto-pilot or something?

As soon as I’ve finished debunking every one of your claims, you simply reboot like a computer and start all over again.

I think we’ve gone over every one of your arguments about five or six time now, and they’re still falling flat every time.

Bloggers all

Actually no one has a choice to make between science and religion.
Science is a study about a totally different reality that is sense -real-based and empirically determined. Religion is about another totally different reality ....one that is abstract,speculative and about the problem of God and life and death and the Other World if there is one.
The choice dear all is whether you accept or reject science or whether you accept or reject religion. There is no comparison or contrast that may be drawn between the two. You're dealing with two very different realities.

socratease

AJ,
Macroevolution was your word, not mine.

Socratease,
I can agree with some of your last post.

However, I put it to you that two of your sentences within your post are quite contradictory to each other.

1) Actually no one has a choice to make between science and religion.

2) The choice dear all is whether you accept or reject science or whether you accept or reject religion.

These contradict, or would you care to clarify?

David,
You say science is not a quest for truth. You’ve said science doesn’t deal in truth.

Yet you say evolution is a ‘fact’. What is a fact if it is not a truth?

I know George went through a few dictionary definitions for these earlier. He seemed to think the two are pretty similar. George wanted to emphasis whether the phenomenon was ‘indisputable’ as a key element.

You say the difference is something to do with whether it is subject to falsification.

Elsewhere, I’ve defined evolution as the commonly accepted view of neo-Darwinism, the common descent of all life on earth from a single ancestor via undirected mutation and natural selection.

I like to carefully define what we’re talking about. Without careful definitions, people could needlessly argue while possibly being in agreement.

I posed this definition of evolution, as it is the only thing in dispute. Observable biological processes are not in dispute. The only thing in dispute is whether the processes display this concept of neo-Darwinism. If they do, then we may be forced to admit it into the category that we call facts, truths, realities, or whatever other appropriate noun.

You may choose another definition of evolution. That word has many meanings, most of which are not in dispute by anyone.

But for neo-Darwinism, to demonstrate that it is a fact by your standards, we’d have to propose how we would subject it to falsification.

Dear Dan,

I really have neither the time nor the inclination to discuss anything further with you. I really do not think you are capable of grasping some ideas because, although I think you have a normal, even possibly an above normal intelligence, I think you are blinded by your religious beliefs. I also don't think you know what science is. I regret any postings to you. AJ Philips has tried to explain ad nauseam. He may continue to try. I won't.

Where's the contradiction, Dan?
In not having choice between the two is a choice of sorts anyway.
The two are co-existent, aren't they? If you go for one the other is rejected even though it can be said that for th chooser there really was no choice!!
Get it ?

Very deep
LOL

socratease

Davidf,
Thanks for crediting me with above average intelligence.

I thank you for your intelligent, considered, and engaging opinions, usually in welcome contrast to the rudeness I’ve received from some.

I’ve never claimed to have high qualifications in science. However, the basic ideas are not hard to grasp. If someone who clearly had scientific qualifications superior to mine told me that I didn’t understand science, then I’d have to accept that, I’d cop it on the chin. However, I don’t think that person is you.

----

Socratease,
No, I don’t exactly get what you’re saying. But I can agree with some of it.

I’d like to work with the best of both, not choose between the two. I’d hope that if both scientists and religionists did their jobs well, they might compliment each other’s work to the benefit of all. Maybe that’s too optimistic.