Leaving creationism = leaving Christianity?

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

Maybe we need to get specific here as to the topics we were talking about and you can clarify what your standards are.

Bird-reptile common ancestry: Do you believe the truth of whether or not birds are evolutionarily related to reptiles is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

Life from non-life: Do you believe the truth of whether or not natural mechanisms and pathways are able to produce life is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

Human-primate common ancestry: Do you believe the truth of whether or not humans are evolutionarily related to other primates is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

Universal Common descent: Do you believe the truth of whether or not all life on earth shares a common ancestry is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

 

[aspen]

UD your comments do not address Jordans posts. Sorry, that is a fact. Her latest post presents 3 points that can be address simply by yourself - yet, once again, i predict you will tap dance around all of them. Please prove me wrong.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

UD your comments do not address Jordans posts. Sorry, that is a fact. Her latest post presents 3 points that can be address simply by yourself - yet, once again, i predict you will tap dance around all of them. Please prove me wrong.

As far as I can see, you are only here to antagonize aspen and no matter what my answers to RJs questions are you are going to turn around and accuse me of tap dancing. You bore me...

Uppsala,

Maybe we need to get specific here as to the topics we were talking about and you can clarify what your standards are.

Bird-reptile common ancestry: Do you believe the truth of whether or not birds are evolutionarily related to reptiles is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

Life from non-life: Do you believe the truth of whether or not natural mechanisms and pathways are able to produce life is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

Human-primate common ancestry: Do you believe the truth of whether or not humans are evolutionarily related to other primates is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

Universal Common descent: Do you believe the truth of whether or not all life on earth shares a common ancestry is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

Uppsala,

Maybe we need to get specific here as to the topics we were talking about and you can clarify what your standards are.

Bird-reptile common ancestry: Do you believe the truth of whether or not birds are evolutionarily related to reptiles is
accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

First question: No.

Second question: Yes.

Life from non-life: Do you believe the truth of whether or not natural mechanisms and pathways are able to produce life is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

Answer: No.

Human-primate common ancestry: Do you believe the truth of whether or not humans are evolutionarily related to other primates is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

Answer: No.

Universal Common descent: Do you believe the truth of whether or not all life on earth shares a common ancestry is accessible by science? Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?

Answer: No.

Any more questions? B)

 

[aspen]

UD - i am glad to see your answers - now i am interested in why you believe what you believe. if it is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, that is fine, but it is not science. As far as me boring you.....highly unlikely since you addressed my post first. also, unconcerning from my POV - i am not posting for the purpose of entertianing you - i just want you to be intellectually honest

 

[UppsalaDragby]

UD - i am glad to see your answers - now i am interested in why you believe what you believe. if it is based on a literal interpretation of Genesis, that is fine, but it is not science. As far as me boring you.....highly unlikely since you addressed my post first. also, unconcerning from my POV - i am not posting for the purpose of entertianing you - i just want you to be intellectually honest

Aspen, you have already burnt your opportunity of being intellectually honest as far as I am concerned. Go try out your provocations and pretending games with someone else. I want nothing to do with you. Feign victory if you want... I think the readers here have enough sense to see through it.

 

[aspen]

LOL since when is asking clarification 'playing games' or being intellectually dishonest? Give me a break. You've backed yourself against the wall - no need for me to declare victory.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

LOL since when is asking clarification 'playing games' or being intellectually dishonest? Give me a break. You've backed yourself against the wall - no need for me to declare victory.

Yawn...

 

[aspen]

still laughing

 

[UppsalaDragby]

still laughing

yes I am.

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

Thanks for answering. Now I'm wondering why a person who believes that the truth on those issues isn't accessible to science, and that science isn't even able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions on them, would ask for empirical evidence (on those subjects).

And maybe the more important question is why anyone would bother trying to provide evidence to such a person. Seems like complete folly to me.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

Thanks for answering. Now I'm wondering why a person who believes that the truth on those issues isn't accessible to science, and that science isn't even able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions on them, would ask for empirical evidence (on those subjects).

And maybe the more important question is why anyone would bother trying to provide evidence to such a person. Seems like complete folly to me.

RJ, I understand your frustration, but presenting evidence to someone who has beliefs to the contrary can hardly be equated to being "complete folly". Everyone has beliefs, you included. Now unless you can demonstrate how the things I don't believe are accessible to science actually ARE accessible to science then all you are doing is presenting prerequisites for accepting your beliefs.

 

[River Jordan]

Uppsala,

No, no frustration at all. More like.....a study of human psychology.

I see this as:

1) Evolutionary biology has reached conclusions about a range of questions (common ancestry, evolutionary relatedness of taxa);

2) You don't believe science can speak to the truth of, or even draw reliable conclusions about, those questions.

3) You want me to take the time to describe the empirical evidence for #1.


I think maybe logical first step is for you to explain why you believe #2. Is that ok?

 

[aspen]

Which she will not accept if it goes against her beliefs........

To sum it up - there's a hole in the bucket

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Uppsala,

No, no frustration at all. More like.....a study of human psychology.

Fine. Just demonstrate for me and the readers how psychology applies to me more than it does to you. This I think will be very interesting.

1) Evolutionary biology has reached conclusions about a range of questions (common ancestry, evolutionary relatedness of taxa);

No one can conclude that similarities between taxa backwards in time are "conclusive". You are trying to pass off assumptions as though they were conclusions, which I don't think you should be doing.

2) You don't believe science can speak to the truth of, or even draw reliable conclusions about, those questions.

No, I don't. "Science" can definitely draw conclusions, but the reliablity of such conclusions diminishes the further we get from what is observable, testable and repeatable. Surely you agree with that?

3) You want me to take the time to describe the empirical evidence for #1.

Yes, I do. Please stipulate in detail why I shouldn't.

I think maybe logical first step is for you to explain why you believe #2. Is that ok?

Just in case you missed it, I think #2 is based on a false assumption - one that I have addressed several times. I DO believe that science can draw reliable conclusions. However, which conclusions it draws depends on what they are. You seem to be trying to conjure up a false dichotomy whereby one either rejects all scientific conclusions or accepts them all without using any kind of discernment whatsoever.

 

[River Jordan]

Just demonstrate for me and the readers how psychology applies to me more than it does to you.

It doesn't, and I never said otherwise.

No one can conclude that similarities between taxa backwards in time are "conclusive". You are trying to pass off assumptions as though they were conclusions, which I don't think you should be doing.

So what's the difference in your mind between an assumption and a conclusion?

No, I don't. "Science" can definitely draw conclusions, but the reliablity of such conclusions diminishes the further we get from what is observable, testable and repeatable. Surely you agree with that?

What do you mean "the further we get"? I'm thinking of something like coming home and finding your window broken, muddy footprints leading from the window to various places in your home and then back to the window, and many of your valuables missing. Now, you didn't observe what took place, and you aren't going to repeat the scene, but you can conduct some obvious tests and conclude that a burglar broke into your home through the window, went through your house, and stole your valuables.

Is that a reliable conclusion?

Yes, I do. Please stipulate in detail why I shouldn't.

That's what we're exploring right now.

Just in case you missed it, I think #2 is based on a false assumption - one that I have addressed several times. I DO believe that science can draw reliable conclusions. However, which conclusions it draws depends on what they are.

I've noticed this with creationists before. For them, the general reliability of a conclusion is determined by what that conclusion is, rather than how it was reached. That's very interesting because I take the opposite approach, where the general reliability of a conclusion is determined by the methods used to reach it.

You seem to be trying to conjure up a false dichotomy whereby one either rejects all scientific conclusions or accepts them all without using any kind of discernment whatsoever.

Nope, completely wrong. I'm trying to see what sort of discernment you're bringing to the table and how it compares to mine.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

So what's the difference in your mind between an assumption and a conclusion?

Are you saying that you don't know what the difference is, or are you just playing games again? Look up the words yourself rather than try to give me homework to do.

What do you mean "the further we get"? I'm thinking of something like coming home and finding your window broken, muddy footprints leading from the window to various places in your home and then back to the window, and many of your valuables missing. Now, you didn't observe what took place, and you aren't going to repeat the scene, but you can conduct some obvious tests and conclude that a burglar broke into your home through the window, went through your house, and stole your valuables.
Is that a reliable conclusion?

Since these kinds of things could have been done by a sleepwalker, the assumption that it was done by a burgler is not "conclusive" evidence.

I've noticed this with creationists before. For them, the general reliability of a conclusion is determined by what that conclusion is, rather than how it was reached. That's very interesting because I take the opposite approach, where the general reliability of a conclusion is determined by the methods used to reach it.

I don't really care what you claim to have "noticed". Too many of your arguments are based on claims that you pull out of thin air. We all notice things, but what does that prove?

Nope, completely wrong. I'm trying to see what sort of discernment you're bringing to the table and how it compares to mine.

That is not what you suggested at all. Here is point #2:

"2) You don't believe science can speak to the truth of, or even draw reliable conclusions about, those questions."

Here you are making an assertion, not "trying to see" anything. You now try to weasle out of it by changing your story.

 

[River Jordan]

Are you saying that you don't know what the difference is, or are you just playing games again? Look up the words yourself rather than try to give me homework to do.

I'm curious what you believe the difference is between a scientist "assuming" and a scientist "concluding" something. Please explain.

Since these kinds of things could have been done by a sleepwalker, the assumption that it was done by a burgler is not "conclusive" evidence.

And do you believe those two explanations for the data are equally valid?

That is not what you suggested at all. Here is point #2:

"2) You don't believe science can speak to the truth of, or even draw reliable conclusions about, those questions."

Here you are making an assertion, not "trying to see" anything. You now try to weasle out of it by changing your story.

#2 was based on your responses in post #283, where you answered "no" to whether you believed science can speak to the truth of or draw reliable conclusions about specific questions.

IOW, you've made what you believe very clear. Now I'm trying to understand why you believe it.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

I'm curious what you believe the difference is between a scientist "assuming" and a scientist "concluding" something. Please explain.

What makes you think that my "beliefs" about two words that are defined in the dictionary differ when it concerns scientists? These constant attempts to find faults in the way I evaluate truth are just tiresome. If you have a point that you think can establish a weakness about how I determine truth then MAKE IT, rather than continuously asking questions that reflect your biased implications. Assumption, as anyone who is familiar with the word can tell you, is not based on the same level of evidential determination as conclusion is. To reach a conclusion one must excludes alternative explanations, whereas an assumption does not need to do so.

And do you believe those two explanations for the data are equally valid?

No, of course not, but you all you are doing is throwing out an analogy and assuming that it validly depicts the two sides in this debate. Forensic evidence is a necessity in cases where empirical evidence is lacking, and simply because a judge or a jury determines that the evidence points towards a particular verdict does not mean that such a verdict is correct. This is what scripture teaches us:

"We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son."

I deem God's testimony about origins to be the truth of the matter "because it is the testimony of God".

#2 was based on your responses in post #283, where you answered "no" to whether you believed science can speak to the truth of or draw reliable conclusions about specific questions.

IOW, you've made what you believe very clear. Now I'm trying to understand why you believe it.

This, once again, exposes the subtlety in the way you try to twist things around in this debate. I never said that science could not draw reasonable conclusions about "specific questions". In fact, I answered YES to one of those "specific" questions in the very post you referred to. Despite that you decided to blurt out the following, which I find a little deceiving:

"2) You don't believe science can speak to the truth of, or even draw reliable conclusions about, those questions."

Now if you have an issue with any question regarding post #283, then please point specifically what question, or questions, you are referring to and I will gladly explain WHY I answered in the way I did. I think if you do so you will discover that my answers were quite rational and reasonable.

 

[River Jordan]

Assumption, as anyone who is familiar with the word can tell you, is not based on the same level of evidential determination as conclusion is. To reach a conclusion one must excludes alternative explanations, whereas an assumption does not need to do so.

So what alternative explanations did you think I was excluding when you said "You are trying to pass off assumptions as though they were conclusions, which I don't think you should be doing"?

No, of course not, but you all you are doing is throwing out an analogy and assuming that it validly depicts the two sides in this debate.

So did you conclude, or merely assume, that the burglary answer is more valid than the sleepwalker answer?

Forensic evidence is a necessity in cases where empirical evidence is lacking, and simply because a judge or a jury determines that the evidence points towards a particular verdict does not mean that such a verdict is correct.

So is the jury assuming their verdict, or concluding it?

I deem God's testimony about origins to be the truth of the matter "because it is the testimony of God".

I agree.

This, once again, exposes the subtlety in the way you try to twist things around in this debate. I never said that science could not draw reasonable conclusions about "specific questions".

Yes you did. I specifically asked you if science was able to draw reasonable conclusions about bird-reptile common ancestry, life from non-life, human-primate common ancestry, and universal common descent. You answered "No" the last three.

In fact, I answered YES to one of those "specific" questions in the very post you referred to.

And that raises an interesting question: Why do you believe science can draw reliable, accurate conclusions about reptile-bird common ancestry, but not human-primate common ancestry? Plus, why don't you believe the actual truth of either question is accessible by science?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

So what alternative explanations did you think I was excluding when you said "You are trying to pass off assumptions as though they were conclusions, which I don't think you should be doing"?

Well that depends on what you mean by the following remark:

"Evolutionary biology has reached conclusions about a range of questions (common ancestry, evolutionary relatedness of taxa);"

So did you conclude, or merely assume, that the burglary answer is more valid than the sleepwalker answer?

I didn't claim to do either, so what exactly is your question based on?

So is the jury assuming their verdict, or concluding it?

The task given to a jury it so make judegments. The conclusion that those judgements are always correct can never be made.

Yes you did. I specifically asked you if science was able to draw reasonable conclusions about bird-reptile common ancestry, life from non-life, human-primate common ancestry, and universal common descent. You answered "No" the last three.

My answer referred to ONE specific question, not "specific quesitons" as though I don't think that any specific questions could be answered reliably. That is why I asked you to point out specifically what question, or questions, you were referring to

Why do you believe science can draw reliable, accurate conclusions about reptile-bird common ancestry, but not human-primate common ancestry?

To the question:

"Bird-reptile common ancestry: Do you believe the truth of whether or not birds are evolutionarily related to reptiles is accessible by science?"

I answered No.

To the question:

Human-primate common ancestry: Do you believe the truth of whether or not humans are evolutionarily related to other primates is accessible by science?

I answered: No.

To the follow-up question "Do you believe science is able to draw reliable, accurate conclusions about this topic?" I anwered yes concerning birds and reptiles (but missed it concerning humans and primates but my answer there would have been the same). And of course my answer depends on what conclusions are being drawn. For example, we CAN conclude that birds and reptiles have similarities, just as we CAN conclude that humans and primates have similarities, which is why I answered yes to that particular question.

Plus, why don't you believe the actual truth of either question is accessible by science?

The reason I don't believe such evidence is accessible is that it leans towards the presupposition that evidence of common ancestory actually exists. It is like asking someone who doesn't believe in UFOs thinks that evidence of UFOs is accessible to science. And while it is somehow possible that there is evidence that birds and repiles, or humans and primates could not have had a common anscestor, I don't believe that it can be found.