Why everything you've been told about evolution is wrong

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Yes, sometimes there is, so for a full view of reality the physical tools of a cognitive therapist simply aren't enough...

Look, let's make this simple.

Computers can now be programmed to beat the very best human chess players, right?

So just program a computer with all the understanding we have of cognitive issues and then send people with cognitive issues to that see that computer for diagnosis and treatment, right?

Or is there something about being human that is more than just a computer style programming?
More...
I don't wish to play down or diminish the value of the mind and its innumerable capabilities. Neither do I wish to diminish the rigors of the scientific method by introducing those double-edged subjective human elements that threaten its consistency and, therefore, its validity.

The human mind is a double-edged sword, as I noted above. This can be a good thing and a not-so-good thing, as history has illustrated time and again. It be be creative and it can be destructive. The scientific method is the gold standard by which the ideas conjured up by the creative mind can be put to the test for scientific validity. Ideas need not be limited to the field of science. However, in that instance they should not be attempted to pass for science.

Your chess computer example illustrates that useful tools cannot perform all functions. Similarly, useful ideas do not necessarily encompass all disciplines. It is helpful to distinguish between and among these various disciplines where possible. The scientific method helps us to distinguish those ideas which fall within the purview of science.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

...As a generalization, card carrying atheists are terrified of the why questions, as they know their trusted science will fall flat and be reduced into a guessing game...
More...
Generalization indeed. You have reduced the atheist to a two-dimensional cartoon character. The possibility exists that the atheist simply chooses to categorize fields of knowledge into their respective compartments. Simply because he chooses not to believe a deity exists in the scientific absence of such a premise, does not make him any less "spiritual," for lack of a better word. He may have belief in family and human connection. He may feel at one with the world and its inhabitants from time to time. He may strive to be a good person, and a useful and contributing member of his community. That can be his "why." He may revel in the beauty of nature and art in all its forms, and the bittersweet knowledge that time is both limited and boundless in that it has preceded him and will continue without him long after he is gone. An atheist can savor the moment and value it as well as anyone. He may ask why, but he does not necessarily need to do so, and will likely see it for the contrivance that it is.
 
" The scientific method is the gold standard by which the ideas conjured up by the creative mind can be put to the test for scientific validity."

So you do accept the very circular nature of testing something that was designed by the mind to be implemented in testing the mind, right?

I will never argue against the concept of scientific validity. Not real scientific validity.

However, the ideas of scientists, their musings, their unproven theories and everything else that goes with it is the human element that changed pure science into a belief and faith system as it is practiced by the layperson atheist...

Fact is one thing, fancy of scientists is another...

Quote from Gabfly1:

I don't wish to play down or diminish the value of the mind and its innumerable capabilities. Neither do I wish to diminish the rigors of the scientific method by introducing those double-edged subjective human elements that threaten its consistency and, therefore, its validity.

The human mind is a double-edged sword, as I noted above. This can be a good thing and a not-so-good thing, as history has illustrated time and again. It be be creative and it can be destructive. The scientific method is the gold standard by which the ideas conjured up by the creative mind can be put to the test for scientific validity. Ideas need not be limited to the field of science. However, in that instance they should not be attempted to pass for science.

Your chess computer example illustrates that useful tools cannot perform all functions. Similarly, useful ideas do not necessarily encompass all disciplines. It is helpful to distinguish between and among these various disciplines where possible. The scientific method helps us to distinguish those ideas which fall within the purview of science.
More...
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

...Fact is one thing, fancy of scientists is another...
More...
I agree. And when it comes to matters of the universe, I am more inclined to side with the fancy of scientists than with the fancy of deists. It is a personal choice based on my best judgment. And as for the "meaning" of my life, I would prefer to determine this for myself rather than have someone else do it for me. Theists are always at the ready to put their meaning on your life.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

I agree. And when it comes to matters of the universe, I am more inclined to side with the fancy of scientists than the fancy of deists. It is a personal choice based on my best judgment. And as for the "meaning" of my life, I would prefer to determine this for myself rather than have someone else do it for me. Theists are always at the ready to put their meaning on your life.
More...

Not entirely fair, that last bit, imho. There are theists, and there are theologians. The latter could no doubt help you a great deal in your own explorations.
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

" The scientific method is the gold standard by which the ideas conjured up by the creative mind can be put to the test for scientific validity."

So you do accept the very circular nature of testing something that was designed by the mind to be implemented in testing the mind, right?

I will never argue against the concept of scientific validity. Not real scientific validity.

However, the ideas of scientists, their musings, their unproven theories and everything else that goes with it is the human element that changed pure science into a belief and faith system as it is practiced by the layperson atheist...

Fact is one thing, fancy of scientists is another...
More...

The typical layperson atheist with a few classes in highschool science never changed pure science. Pure science is merely over shadowed by it.

The reason this new athiest faith has come along is because more and more people perceive it to be closer to the truth than any other belief system. Look at the data. 8% of people in 1990 had no religious affiliation. Now the number is 15%.

Your argument is like arguing about how shitty Yankees fans are even when the team has been dominating all season. Both the Yankee fans and the scientific athiest fans are completely irrelevant.
 
Quote from NeoRio1:

...Your argument is like arguing about how shitty Yankees fans are even when the team has been dominating all season. Both the Yankee fans and the scientific athiest fans are completely irrelevant.
More...
In all candor, I have more confidence in my position knowing that you are firmly on the other side of the argument. Not to suggest that you are necessarily always wrong, but your post history suggests that you generally don't know what you're talking about. And so, while the "smart money" concept is just a rule of thumb, I take some added measure of comfort in it. Thank you.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

Maybe so, but that has generally been my experience.
More...

The are billions of theists in the world.

Most of the great scientific discoveries were made by theists.
Theists laid the foundation of current western freedoms.

And you find them to be what?

And you prefer atheists like Stalin and Mao?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top