Resolved: Christian apologists only use scientific evidence and conclusions when they believe those conclusions verify some Biblical claim.
Sub-issue:
It is intellectually biased and inconsistent to claim "science provides convincing evidence" only when such evidence appears to favor the Christian fundamentalist POV, then to turn around and favor "divine revelation" over science, when the scientific evidence does not support a Biblical literalist POV.
Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Moderator: Moderators
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1316
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 868 times
- Been thanked: 1274 times
Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #1
Last edited by Diogenes on Mon Apr 18, 2022 5:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6652 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #71Humans have not been able to make observations relating to a time of transition from non-life to life on earth. That means that observations of life only coming from previous life are limited and do not necessarily represent the whole picture.
Beauty, harmony and order are subjective terms and there is nothing to demonstrate that anything possessing those traits could not arise by chance. Snowflakes? That said, there is also a lot of ugliness, disharmony and disorder in the universe. What does that tell us?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #72Truthfully, believers don't have to do squat. However . . . asserting that god exists does carry a burden of proof should the believer wish to press the point.
Certainly, however, this doesn't mean they have to give it any credence. Personally, I don't see how such a "proof" could exist, but that's just me.Can atheists consider any proof that God does not exist?
But is it the most feasible thing to accept? What is your point of view that tilts the balance (whatever this is) toward the existence of a creator?From my own point of view, the balance is totally tilted towards the existence of a Creator, if this is about what is the most feasible thing to accept.
Really! What is this observation?Human observation shows that life only comes from previous life, and that the beauty, harmony and order of the Universe cannot occur by chance.
.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #73Of course believers don't hafta show their beliefs / claims are true.
Cause they can't.
Yet in debate, the expectation remains.
Feasibility is not always equal to truth.From my own point of view, the balance is totally tilted towards the existence of a Creator, if this is about what is the most feasible thing to accept.
I ask again, do you contend atoms are living entities?Human observation shows that life only comes from previous life,
Then ugly, disharmony, and disorder show the universe must have come about by chance.and that the beauty, harmony and order of the Universe cannot occur by chance.
Your claims in this matter show nothing more'n you've got you an ability to assert.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #74When one of the wheelbarrow brains thanks your post...
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #75More to the point, we don't know who it was who faked the find, but we do know a Darwinist debunked it. Understandably so. Piltdown didn't fit the other evidence and it didn't fit evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory predicted that man evolved from a creature with a manlike body and a small brain. And here they found a fossil with an apelike jaw and a large cranium. It was an embarrassment. So not surprising that a Darwinist did some closer examination of the find.
(edit) It's important to note that when we started finding primitive hominins, they did have humanlike bodies and apelike skulls, confirming the theory once again.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #76[Replying to The Barbarian in post #75]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... us-hoaxes/
Maybe not enough to convict him in a court of law, but he sure looks like the culprit.
It appears some modern day sleuthing has pointed even more fingers at the most prominent suspect (Charles Dawson):... we don't know who it was who faked the find ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... us-hoaxes/
Maybe not enough to convict him in a court of law, but he sure looks like the culprit.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- The Barbarian
- Sage
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 586 times
Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science
Post #77Stephen Gould suggested Teillard de Chardin. In Gould's opinion, it was an elaborate prank that got out of hand to the point that the prankster was afraid to come clean about it. But I think Dawson is still a better suspect.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Thu May 05, 2022 7:19 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #75]
It appears some modern day sleuthing has pointed even more fingers at the most prominent suspect (Charles Dawson):... we don't know who it was who faked the find ...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/spe ... us-hoaxes/
Maybe not enough to convict him in a court of law, but he sure looks like the culprit.