Biblical literalism correlates with anti-science

[marksman]

Finally, the authors also found that with such individuals, the more science they're exposed to, the more they distrust it. So if you're someone like me who defends science to fundamentalists, it's actually counter-productive to spend your time trying to explain the science! All you're doing is pushing them deeper and deeper into an anti-science mindset.

For me this research is extremely helpful and informative. I've always suspected that when a fundamentalist says something like "Well prove it then" or "Show me the data", they're not really asking in good faith. Instead of asking out of genuine interest and curiosity, it's more of an attempt to stump me (likely because they've been told by their anti-science sources that the data doesn't exist). That's why when I do produce the data, there's rarely (if ever) a genuine attempt by the fundamentalist to look it over and understand it. Instead, since it was always about trying to stump me, producing the data only generates more attempts to stump me.

Finally, the authors also found that with such individuals, the more christianity they're exposed to, the more they distrust it. So if you're someone like me who defends christianity to atheists, it's actually counter productive to spend your time trying to explain the christianity! All you're doing is pushing them deeper and deeper into an anti-christian mindset.

For me this research is extremely helpful and informative. I've always suspected that when an atheist says something like "Well prove it then" or "Show me the data", they're not really asking in good faith. Instead of asking out of genuine interest and curiosity, it's more of an attempt to stump me (likely because they've been told by their anti-christian sources that the data doesn't exist). That's why when I do produce the data, there's rarely (if ever) a genuine attempt by the atheist to look it over and understand it. Instead, since it was always about trying to stump me, producing the data only generates more attempts to stump me.

Sorry, but I could not resist it.

You see, here is the real problem.....taking a non-believers opinion over God's Word. The issue is NOT how literal one takes the Bible, it's how one understands the Bible IN context. That context does not come from a worldly POV, it comes from spiritual one. God sent His Holy Spirit to empower us and bring His word into focus. That you believe man's science and theory over God's supremacy is quite sad to say the least.

Probably my favourite sort of TV programme is the natural history ones. I love the knowledge that they give about the animal kingdom. I love the incredible photography that shows the animal kingdom in real close up and the plant kingdom in incredible beauty and the time lapse photography that shows the development of everything.

I ignore all the mumbo jumbo about it happening millions of years ago by chance and focus on God's brilliant design and abilities. In fact, when I hear such claims I am reminded that God's foolishness is wiser than the wisdom of men.

I am appreciative of the dedication of those who find out the things that they are showing us but when all is said and done, their knowledge is a drop in the ocean compared to what God knows. What they have to say may be useful but in comparison to God's knowledge it is nothing more than a paragraph on the page of knowledge.

What I find is that people, including christians tend to be in awe of man's knowledge because they do not read God's word and find the gems that are scattered all over His word. Compare the two and there is no contest. God wins hands down.

The difference between early scientists and the predominant scientific worldview today is that early scientists...and many Christian scientists today...see their work as exploring and understanding the mind and handiwork of God. Their view was that things could be discovered because they were created by a designer who wanted to be understood and gave us intellects to see his beautiful work and divine power. Theology was seen as an umbrella and every other discipline of study was under that overarching understanding.

Today, theology has been pushed in a corner and God has become an optional, and often viewed as an ignorant concept that is opposed to discovery and exploration. The early Christian scientists who made some of the greatest scientific discoveries must be rolling in their graves. The idea that man operates by an unaided universal reason, is not only religious, but is without any scientific basis. The idea that the aim is to find how things came about "naturally" (which now means, apart from any design or mind) is not a scientific necessity, but is one that is continually rammed down people's throats. We think we have power over the creation because we can label things, learn how they work and put them under a microscope to be categorized and filed. The truth is our intellects and each breath is a gift and all of creation is an expression of God.

A beetle does not exists in and of itself. It is an expression of the mind of God, and the more we learn of its intricacy and incredible functions should draw us closer to God. Not only that, but it exists each moment because the word of God and power of God holds it together as with every other molecule in all of creation. The ultimate goal of science and every other field of study should be worship. When people miss that, they miss everything.

The goal should not be to make the Bible-thumper less anti-science. It should be to stop pretending that these two areas of study are opposing or conflicting. You cant blame religious people for being defensive when the large majority of today's scientific community fail to glorify God for the beauty and design and instead pretends "God" is nothing but a plea to ignorance and a clinging to "gaps." "God did it" is not a cop out. Science should be about praising God for how he did it, and not a means of showing God had nothing to do with it but it was all "natural." If creation is from the hand of God and is sustained by God, and our means to contemplate its order and complexity is a gift of God...then "natural" takes on a whole new meaning.

A beetle does not exists in and of itself. It is an expression of the mind of God, and the more we learn of its intricacy and incredible functions should draw us closer to God. Not only that, but it exists each moment because the word of God and power of God holds it together as with every other molecule in all of creation. The ultimate goal of science and every other field of study should be worship. When people miss that, they miss everything.

I want to highlight this part of your post as it is pure revelation for me. I shall look at beetles quite differently as a result of your comment as I had never thought of a beetle or anything like that as an expression of the mind of God but it is pure fact because if he created the heavens and the earth and everything in them (and he did), then, yes there was a divine purpose behind everything. That makes what we see, hear and experience of creation totally amazing as behind everything we can say "I wonder what your divine purpose was/is."

​If that isn't enough to make you want to worship God I don't know what is.

 

[Wormwood]

Thank you marksman.

“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:19–20, ESV)

When the creature is divorced from the creator, then I believe a form of idolatry is taking place. If we focus on the beetle (or any other creature we might study) for the sake of the beetle and miss the hand of God, the brilliance of God, and the joy of God in such remarkable little creatures, then we are failing to glorify Him and are rather glorifying the creature or ourselves in our pursuits of knowledge. Naturalism is a religion and should not be confused as science. This is the dilemma that many are faced with today. We should understand from the history of scientific discovery that naturalism is not necessary for scientific discovery or objectivity (which is the secularists battle cry today....i.e. "god of the gaps" "today's religion is nothing more than the remaining ignorance of prehistoric people trying to make sense of their world", etc.). In fact, I think in many ways it impedes true science and the ultimate end of our knowledge of creation. Again, I think this supposed divide between science and religion is fabricated and is a means of promoting the false notion that naturalism = science and religion = anti-science. Nothing could be more absurd.

 

[River Jordan]

As we've discussed before, don't conflate philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism. Science must operate via the latter, whereas the former is irrelevant to it.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

As we've discussed before, don't conflate philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism. Science must operate via the latter, whereas the former is irrelevant to it.

Kind of rules out evolution though, doesn't it? :lol:

 

[River Jordan]

Kind of rules out evolution though, doesn't it? :lol:

Um....no. :wacko:

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Um....no. :wacko:

um... yes :wacko:

Unless of course you can show... using the principles of "methodological naturalism" ... that cats and dogs have a common ancestor, without appealing to the philosophical idea that all forms of life originated from one single ancestor. Care to do that for us RJ?

Oh, and by the way, how many times am I allowed to post before you accuse me of being overly argumentative (something that obviously doe'snt apply to you :lol: ) ???

 

[StanJ]

Probably my favourite sort of TV programme is the natural history ones. I love the knowledge that they give about the animal kingdom. I love the incredible photography that shows the animal kingdom in real close up and the plant kingdom in incredible beauty and the time lapse photography that shows the development of everything.

I ignore all the mumbo jumbo about it happening millions of years ago by chance and focus on God's brilliant design and abilities. In fact, when I hear such claims I am reminded that God's foolishness is wiser than the wisdom of men.

I am appreciative of the dedication of those who find out the things that they are showing us but when all is said and done, their knowledge is a drop in the ocean compared to what God knows. What they have to say may be useful but in comparison to God's knowledge it is nothing more than a paragraph on the page of knowledge.

What I find is that people, including christians tend to be in awe of man's knowledge because they do not read God's word and find the gems that are scattered all over His word. Compare the two and there is no contest. God wins hands down.

Mine too Marksman and I do the same thing...ignore the evolutionary points that I know to be wrong and enjoy the real knowledge.

I am quite amazed at the dismissive nature of some very atheistic evolutionary biologists and how willing they are to accept faulty science but are not willing to see the clear evidence of intelligent design throughout nature. Not what many try to make it mean, as in a distant intellect, but a very personal designer that we as Christians have much more of an understanding of.
Well SOME Christians anyway.

 

[River Jordan]

Unless of course you can show... using the principles of "methodological naturalism" ... that cats and dogs have a common ancestor, without appealing to the philosophical idea that all forms of life originated from one single ancestor. Care to do that for us RJ?

Of course.

Mammalia

That's not only the phylogeny of the class, but each page contains the references to the scientific literature that support the material on that page. However, if you're looking for one good read on the subject, then I suggest this paper...

Impacts of the Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution and KPg Extinction on Mammal Diversification

As you can see, the authors pull in a lot of data from different fields of science (paleontology, comparative genetics, cladistics, statistics, etc.) and use their convergence to construct an evolutionary history of mammals, which of course includes the common ancestry of canids and felids. And nowhere in the paper are any philosophical arguments made, nor are there in any of the references that I've read at the Tree of Life site . Also, none of them rely on the idea that all life evolved from a single common ancestor.

Oh, and by the way, how many times am I allowed to post before you accuse me of being overly argumentative (something that obviously doe'snt apply to you :lol: ) ???

We'll see. Every one of your conditions above have been met. Will you recognize that, or will you move the goalposts to something else? All I'm asking for is simple honesty. When you guys put up challenges like the one above, and then I go out of my way to pull up the material that I'm hoping will help you better understand the subject you seem to be so interested in, at least have the courtesy to look at it, make an effort to understand it, and come back with informed comments and questions.. But you know what I see? I mostly see people just wave it all away without really even looking at it. I don't expect people to come back and be like "I'm totally convinced" or anything, but I'm hoping they'll at least show they've looked at the material and are interested in understanding it.

So surprise me UD.

 

[marksman]

Thank you marksman.


When the creature is divorced from the creator, then I believe a form of idolatry is taking place. If we focus on the beetle (or any other creature we might study) for the sake of the beetle and miss the hand of God, the brilliance of God, and the joy of God in such remarkable little creatures, then we are failing to glorify Him and are rather glorifying the creature or ourselves in our pursuits of knowledge. Naturalism is a religion and should not be confused as science. This is the dilemma that many are faced with today. We should understand from the history of scientific discovery that naturalism is not necessary for scientific discovery or objectivity (which is the secularists battle cry today....i.e. "god of the gaps" "today's religion is nothing more than the remaining ignorance of prehistoric people trying to make sense of their world", etc.). In fact, I think in many ways it impedes true science and the ultimate end of our knowledge of creation. Again, I think this supposed divide between science and religion is fabricated and is a means of promoting the false notion that naturalism = science and religion = anti-science. Nothing could be more absurd.

I agree. I have been doing a lot of reading about evolution lately and as I delve deeper, it is clear that evolution is not scientific, it is philosophical.

Mine too Marksman and I do the same thing...ignore the evolutionary points that I know to be wrong and enjoy the real knowledge.

I am quite amazed at the dismissive nature of some very atheistic evolutionary biologists and how willing they are to accept faulty science but are not willing to see the clear evidence of intelligent design throughout nature. Not what many try to make it mean, as in a distant intellect, but a very personal designer that we as Christians have much more of an understanding of.
Well SOME Christians anyway.

Agreed. One of the main enjoyments of natural history programmes for those in the know is that when the presenter, particularly David Attenborough rabbits on about millions of years ago, this happened or that happened so that is why this is happening today, I think to myself "Wow, God must have had a great time devising this difference in the species because he could and it gave him the opportunity to exercise the vast ability he has to do what he does." My God gets bigger every time I watch these programmes and the atheists get more laughable as they try and prove that they know more than God does.

 

[StanJ]

Love David Attenborough

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Of course.

Mammalia

That's not only the phylogeny of the class, but each page contains the references to the scientific literature that support the material on that page. However, if you're looking for one good read on the subject, then I suggest this paper...

Impacts of the Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution and KPg Extinction on Mammal Diversification

As you can see, the authors pull in a lot of data from different fields of science (paleontology, comparative genetics, cladistics, statistics, etc.) and use their convergence to construct an evolutionary history of mammals, which of course includes the common ancestry of canids and felids. And nowhere in the paper are any philosophical arguments made, nor are there in any of the references that I've read at the Tree of Life site . Also, none of them rely on the idea that all life evolved from a single common ancestor.

So "likelihood-based methods" prove that cats and dogs have a common ancestor and that evolution is not a philosiphical idea????????

Explain! Don't just provide links. I could just as easily provide a link to a bunch of creationist sites and claim that it proves my point unless you disprove it all.

We'll see. Every one of your conditions above have been met.

Um .... no :wacko:

All you did was give a couple of links without explaining how they prove your point. A common evasive tactic used by proponents of evolution.

Will you recognize that, or will you move the goalposts to something else?

Did I move any goalposts? Explain what you mean!

All I'm asking for is simple honesty.

Was I being dishonest? Explain what you mean!

When you guys put up challenges like the one above, and then I go out of my way to pull up the material that I'm hoping will help you better understand the subject you seem to be so interested in, at least have the courtesy to look at it, make an effort to understand it, and come back with informed comments and questions..

Links to "material" doesn't quite do it though does it? There are countless sites with countless pages with material used to support different philosophical ideas, and all you are doing here is claiming that the material that you provide is correct and that everyone who stands in opposition to it is wrong.

But you know what I see? I mostly see people just wave it all away without really even looking at it. I don't expect people to come back and be like "I'm totally convinced" or anything, but I'm hoping they'll at least show they've looked at the material and are interested in understanding it.

So surprise me UD.

Well why don't you surprise me, and everyone else here, by explaining how "Previous analyses of relations, divergence times, and diversification patterns among extant mammalian families have relied on supertree methods and local molecular clocks" is supposed to meet the conditions I made?

And what "previous analyses of relations" does this abstract refer to?

What "divergence times" is it referring to?

What does "diversification patterns among extant mammalian families have relied on supertree methods and local molecular clocks" suppose to prove?

Surely you are not trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes here RJ? Please, please, please, break these things down for us and show us that they are indisputable You know.. just to show us how much you understand instead of pulling the old "give-links-to-papers-that-only-"real"-scientists-understand-so-that-you-can-easily-claim-that-anyone-who-doesn't-refute-them-is-ignorant" trick. Where are the facts that prove you point RJ?

Oh, and by the way RJ, you, in the OP, claimed that "the authors recognized..." and "dug deeper into the data" and that "they found..." and so on, almost as though you thought that "the authors" were some kind of authority completely disengaged from any "religious" beliefs.

Care to share with the readers in this forum how you reached such a conclusion?

 

[River Jordan]

So "likelihood-based methods" prove that cats and dogs have a common ancestor and that evolution is not a philosiphical idea????????

Yes. Remember, your conditions were about using methodological naturalism to show the common ancestry between cats and dogs without relying on the concept of universal common ancestry. I've done that. Statistical methods are an example of methodological naturalism, and there is nothing in any of the material I provided you that relies on universal common ancestry.

Explain! Don't just provide links. I could just as easily provide a link to a bunch of creationist sites and claim that it proves my point unless you disprove it all.

First of all, I didn't just "provide links to a website". I provided you with a published paper in one of the most prominent scientific journals in the world....one that directly addresses the very challenge you put forth. If you're equating a published article in the journal Science with any random site on the internet, then I have to wonder how you function in every day life.

Second, no....I'm not going to explain the entire evolutionary history of mammals to you. It would take months, and you've shown very well that you're not approaching the subject in good faith. Remember, after I took the time to look up and post this material for you, all I asked was that you read it, try to understand it, and come back with informed comments and questions. You didn't do any of those things. Instead you just waved it away as if it were just some random website. Given that, I see absolutely no reason to spend any more time on it with you.

The material is there. If you're truly interested in the subject, you'll take the time to look it over. If your only purpose was to try and stump me and make me look bad, then you'll do exactly what you're doing now.

All you did was give a couple of links without explaining how they prove your point. A common evasive tactic used by proponents of evolution.

You asked about a complex scientific question that involves data from multiple fields of science, and you can't figure out why the response was a reference to a paper in a scientific journal? Really, you can't figure that out?

Did I move any goalposts? Explain what you mean!

Was I being dishonest? Explain what you mean!

I didn't say you were, I was saying please don't do those things.

all you are doing here is claiming that the material that you provide is correct and that everyone who stands in opposition to it is wrong.

Can you show where I said that? All I remember saying is "at least have the courtesy to look at it, make an effort to understand it, and come back with informed comments and questions".

Well why don't you surprise me, and everyone else here, by explaining how "Previous analyses of relations, divergence times, and diversification patterns among extant mammalian families have relied on supertree methods and local molecular clocks" is supposed to meet the conditions I made?

That's a reference to previous mammalia phylogenies and the methods used to construct them. The authors of this paper used different methods to construct theirs.

And what "previous analyses of relations" does this abstract refer to? What "divergence times" is it referring to?

Previous published mammalian phylogenies that used estimated times of divergence to do things like calibrate their molecular clocks. But again, they're just talking about other studies as background before they get into their phylogeny.

What does "diversification patterns among extant mammalian families have relied on supertree methods and local molecular clocks" suppose to prove?

They're saying that previous phylogenies for existing mammals (not extinct ones) were based on supertree methods (taking smaller phylogenies and putting them together to make a "supertree") and local molecular clocks (based on known mutation rates for the taxa being studied, rather than a "global molecular clock" that is based on mutation rates for all taxa).

Surely you are not trying to pull the wool over everyones eyes here RJ? Please, please, please, break these things down for us and show us that they are indisputable You know.. just to show us how much you understand instead of pulling the old "give-links-to-papers-that-only-"real"-scientists-understand-so-that-you-can-easily-claim-that-anyone-who-doesn't-refute-them-is-ignorant" trick. Where are the facts that prove you point RJ?

Is this you basically saying "I looked at the abstract and have no idea what they're talking about"? If so, just say so without all the accusations and anger.

Oh, and by the way RJ, you, in the OP, claimed that "the authors recognized..." and "dug deeper into the data" and that "they found..." and so on, almost as though you thought that "the authors" were some kind of authority completely disengaged from any "religious" beliefs.

Care to share with the readers in this forum how you reached such a conclusion?

I read their paper and a few others. There's absolutely nothing in any of them about religious beliefs or anything of the sort. They're scientists doing their work...that's it. What sort of religious beliefs did you think would be in there?

 

[the stranger]

Marksman. Your reply on the 23rd was right on. The more details one looks into about 'facts' used by modern science shows the lack of more than knowledge, but proves man is lost without God and that there can be no true understanding without Him. In His timing, He will reveal Himself to all. All to often us humans are really never ready for true revelations from God, Facts and love, truly a God thing.

 

[[email protected]]

Recently I read through the following paper: The Political Context of Science in the United States: Public Acceptance of Evidence-Based Policy and Science Funding (sorry, it's behind a pay wall). The gist of the paper is that the authors recognized the correlation between conservatism, religious belief, and overall distrust of science. But the authors dug deeper into the data and found something even more explanatory. They found that the primary predictor of a person being distrustful of science is Biblical literalism.

IOW, if you're a Biblical literalist (defined as agreeing with the statement "The Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word"), it is extremely likely you also hold anti-science attitudes, and generally don't trust it. Also interestingly, the authors found a correlation with anti-science attitudes and the psychological trait of authoritarianism (described as "a tendency to see issues in sharply black-and white terms"). I'm sure that sounds familiar to many of you here.

Finally, the authors also found that with such individuals, the more science they're exposed to, the more they distrust it. So if you're someone like me who defends science to fundamentalists, it's actually counter-productive to spend your time trying to explain the science! All you're doing is pushing them deeper and deeper into an anti-science mindset.

For me this research is extremely helpful and informative. I've always suspected that when a fundamentalist says something like "Well prove it then" or "Show me the data", they're not really asking in good faith. Instead of asking out of genuine interest and curiosity, it's more of an attempt to stump me (likely because they've been told by their anti-science sources that the data doesn't exist). That's why when I do produce the data, there's rarely (if ever) a genuine attempt by the fundamentalist to look it over and understand it. Instead, since it was always about trying to stump me, producing the data only generates more attempts to stump me.

So with all that in mind, I do plan on approaching my discussions of science here at CB a bit differently. We'll see how it goes. ^_^

This isn't about science. It isn't about religion either.

The whole point to this argument is subjective opinion, nothing less. When all the shouting dies down for a moment or two, NOTHING has been established because NOTHING but opinion is discussed. Unfortunately, that is the nature of the cultural discussion in America today. It isn't about science and it isn't about religion - it's about the suppression of religion as a measure of scientific application. It's about the morality of doing a thing that science enables.

"Science investigates; religion interprets. Science gives man knowledge which is power; religion gives man wisdom which is control. Science deals mainly with facts; religion deals mainly with values. The two are not rivals. They are complementary."
- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In the end science tells us how to do a thing. Religion tells us whether we ought to do it or not.

Science may give us the tools to kill efficiently, but religion tells us we ought not do it in the first place.

The real question in America today is about restraint and the lack of it. Religion cautions restraint. Those that indulge themselves deny religion and take the side of science which enables the effort.

The ultimate judge of what a man does with the talent and the tools he has is God. Those who refuse morality MUST also deny God. In so doing they destroy their own soul and pollute the world and their society with their willfulness and sin.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Yes. Remember, your conditions were about using methodological naturalism to show the common ancestry between cats and dogs without relying on the concept of universal common ancestry. I've done that.

No you haven't!

Statistical methods are an example of methodological naturalism, and there is nothing in any of the material I provided you that relies on universal common ancestry.

That is an incredibly pathetic argument. Statistics show that cats are cats and dogs are dogs. They also show that only cats produce cats and that dogs only produce dogs. So statistics can obviously be used as an example of methodological naturalism to prove you wrong.

Please don't try to bluff your way out of this RJ. I would expect something much more concrete than an interpretation of statistics to prove your point.

First of all, I didn't just "provide links to a website". I provided you with a published paper in one of the most prominent scientific journals in the world

Oh... an appeal to authority in other words. Here is a "scientific paper"... shut up, I am right and you are wrong. In a world where papers have constantly been proven wrong it surprises me that you are still trying to pull that old trick. An appeal to authority is, and always has been, a logical fallacy.

What I am asking you for is something that extends beyond logical fallacies. Something that we all can agree with that proves evolution to be true.

Got anything River??? ... Anything at all?

Second, no....I'm not going to explain the entire evolutionary history of mammals to you.

Of course you're not.. because you cannot prove that what you call "history of mammals" is anything other than specualtion.

Remember, after I took the time to look up and post this material for you, all I asked was that you read it, try to understand it, and come back with informed comments and questions.

Oh... so all you asked me was to read it and understand it? You just finished saying that it would take months to digest and understand! Don't play games with me River. There are creationists who have devoted years of their lives studying evolution and who have turned their back on it for lack of evidence. So unless you can in some way guarantee me that wasting months/years of my life studying papers that support evolution would prove your point, then what IS your point?

Can you show where I said that? All I remember saying is "at least have the courtesy to look at it, make an effort to understand it, and come back with informed comments and questions".

No you didn't. This is what you said:

But the authors dug deeper into the data and found something even more explanatory. They found that the primary predictor of a person being distrustful of science is biblical literalism.

I tried to get you to explain what "biblical literalism" was referring to but you jokingly tried to shrug it off. What exactly did they "find" Jordan?

That's a reference to previous mammalia phylogenies and the methods used to construct them. The authors of this paper used different methods to construct theirs.

Again!!! How does using "different methods" meet my conditions????????????

Previous published mammalian phylogenies that used estimated times of divergence to do things like calibrate their molecular clocks. But again, they're just talking about other studies as background before they get into their phylogeny.

Proving what???

They're saying that previous phylogenies for existing mammals (not extinct ones) were based on supertree methods (taking smaller phylogenies and putting them together to make a "supertree") and local molecular clocks (based on known mutation rates for the taxa being studied, rather than a "global molecular clock" that is based on mutation rates for all taxa).

And?

Is this you basically saying "I looked at the abstract and have no idea what they're talking about"? If so, just say so without all the accusations and anger.

I'm not angry, I just don't like you being dishonest here.

If all you can do is refer to a document that would take months to understand, and which obviously doesn't prove your point since not everyone who has taken the time to study these things agrees with you, then all you are doing is trying to portray your opinions as though they were fact. Something that I don't appreciate... thats' all..

I read their paper and a few others. There's absolutely nothing in any of them about religious beliefs or anything of the sort. They're scientists doing their work...that's it. What sort of religious beliefs did you think would be in there?

How do you know what their religious beliefs are????

Some of them would obviously be atheists. That is a religious belief. Some of the would be believers and yet hold to the idea that views held by the scientific community are more likely to be true than an ancient document. That is a religious belief.

So how did you come to the conclusion that the authors were "religiously" uncontaminated?

 

[River Jordan]

No you haven't!

Sure I have. This is what you demanded: "show... using the principles of "methodological naturalism" ... that cats and dogs have a common ancestor, without appealing to the philosophical idea that all forms of life originated from one single ancestor".

The material I took the time to find and post for you 1) describes the evolutionary history of mammals, including how cats and dogs have a common ancestor; 2) utilizes methods that fall within methodological naturalism; and, 3) do not rely in any way on universal common ancestry from a single ancestor.

That you can't be bothered to look at any of it only reflects badly on you, not on the science.

That is an incredibly pathetic argument. Statistics show that cats are cats and dogs are dogs. They also show that only cats produce cats and that dogs only produce dogs. So statistics can obviously be used as an example of methodological naturalism to prove you wrong.

Again you're showing exactly why it's a waste of time to explain science to you. You don't even know what they did, yet here you are waving it away and claiming to have proved it wrong. Amazing how you can prove something wrong, even though you have no idea what it is!

Oh... an appeal to authority in other words. Here is a "scientific paper"... shut up, I am right and you are wrong. In a world where papers have constantly been proven wrong it surprises me that you are still trying to pull that old trick. An appeal to authority is, and always has been, a logical fallacy.

Like I said, I wonder how you manage to function in real life. I suppose when you feel ill you go to random people on the street for a diagnosis, because going to a qualified doctor would be the fallacy of appealing to authority, right? When your car breaks down you don't go to a trained mechanic for the same reason.

Kinda makes you wonder why courts call "expert witnesses" to testify about technical subjects like genetics, rather than randomly pick from the general public. Crazy, huh? :wacko:

What I am asking you for is something that extends beyond logical fallacies. Something that we all can agree with that proves evolution to be true.

Oh sure....I'll do that right after I get done getting Muslims to agree that Mohammed wasn't really a prophet.

Oh... so all you asked me was to read it and understand it? You just finished saying that it would take months to digest and understand!

Yeah....who woulda guessed that something like the evolutionary history of mammals as determined by comparative genetics, paleontology, phylogenetics, and statistical analyses would be a complex technical subject that would actually require some time and work to understand? I mean, don't these scientists know they're supposed to do all their work in a way that's specifically tailored to young-earth creationists who have no background, education, or knowledge of biology? What's wrong with these people? :huh:

There are creationists who have devoted years of their lives studying evolution and who have turned their back on it for lack of evidence. So unless you can in some way guarantee me that wasting months/years of my life studying papers that support evolution would prove your point, then what IS your point?

You're demonstrating my point for me, and doing one heck of a job.

No you didn't. This is what you said:

But the authors dug deeper into the data and found something even more explanatory. They found that the primary predictor of a person being distrustful of science is biblical literalism.

I tried to get you to explain what "biblical literalism" was referring to but you jokingly tried to shrug it off. What exactly did they "find" Jordan?

Sorry, I didn't realize you were going to take what I said about the paper in the OP and apply it to the paper about the evolutionary history of mammals. Guess I should've seen that coming.

Again!!! How does using "different methods" meet my conditions????????????

Proving what???

And?

If I were you, I wouldn't bother. These scientists are probably just atheists who hate God and the only reason their paper got published in the first place is because all the people at Science are God-haters too. My apologies for tempting you with such an obvious Satanic ploy.

If all you can do is refer to a document that would take months to understand, and which obviously doesn't prove your point since not everyone who has taken the time to study these things agrees with you, then all you are doing is trying to portray your opinions as though they were fact. Something that I don't appreciate... thats' all..

Yeah I know. That's how we can definitively say that the earth doesn't move and is orbited by the rest of the universe. After all, not everyone who has taken the time to study cosmology agrees with the heliocentrists, so there!

How do you know what their religious beliefs are????

Some of them would obviously be atheists. That is a religious belief. Some of the would be believers and yet hold to the idea that views held by the scientific community are more likely to be true than an ancient document. That is a religious belief.

So how did you come to the conclusion that the authors were "religiously" uncontaminated?

Well clearly I was wrong. This is an obvious trick by Satan to lure good Christians away from the faith....what with all the talk of fossils, genetics, math....that's the Devil's work! Oh sure, there's nothing at all in any of those papers about God, Satan, or any other religious concept, but all that does is prove they're hiding the real agenda. h34r:

Well spotted UD.

 

[marksman]

I have two cats. sisters actually both of whom are cuddly and so friendly and loyal. Now, I am doing a little experiment on them. I am hoping for at least one of them to evolve into dog to save me having to buy one. I have put in an order for a Jack Russell. Or at least grow a beak and wings so that I can have my own personal finch.

So far, even though I have looked very closely each day no evidence of evolution has happened. Even though I feed them dog food and budgie seed to help them along. Perhaps there is a time frame for this sort of thing to happen. Maybe it take 20 years or even 100 years or even a 1,000 years before I can expect any evolutionary change.

Maybe I have missed the point and that they have evolved into cats over the last million years and it will take another million to get my dog or finch. I did ask one atheist why we have never seen anything evolve since Darwin announced his hypothesis. His answer was you just don't see it happen that is all. So be very wary my friend as one day you may wake up and that cat you thought you had has turned into a lion so you will need more than kitty litter and a tin of whiskas.

 

[JimParker]

Please use a smaller font. That large font is like shouting.

Thanks

 

[StanJ]

Please use a smaller font. That large font is like shouting.

Thanks

Some people use large font because they can't see the smaller one.

 

[JimParker]

Some people use large font because they can't see the smaller one.

That would make sense

So, write them in 24 point and then shrink them to 12 before posting.