• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Evolution or Creation?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
buckeyegrad;1772550; said:
Jake,

Too bad your dogmatic faith in the positivisitic paradigm can't evolve and join us in the 21st century.
Click to expand...

I entered your comment into a grade level readability tool and it received the following results:

  • Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level = 11.80
  • Gunning-Fog Score = 18.30
  • Coleman-Liau Index = 11.00
  • SMOG Index = 12.90
  • Automated Readability Index = 9.00
  • Average Grade Level = 12.60
I would agree with your comment were science not able to anticipate and hypothesize that mechanisms should occur, and what they are likely to be, and then verifiably and falsifiably show the theories that are returned from this endeavor to be true. Whether the special theory of relativity, or the general I suppose, are created by another being becomes irrelevant when you want to perform certain analyses. We need theories that people neither understand or, if they did, would not believe in order to launch a satellite or fight the new flu virus each year. Nonetheless, the science is correct. The discussion of anti-positivism seems mostly to me to be moot and a red herring, a grasp at a way to discredit something that has proven itself time and again. On a holistic scale it has use: but as to whether evolution or any number of other scientific theories are correct: it is a tool for those who wish to believe differently, and anti-positivism does not reduce well to particular theories and subject matters. That is just my simplistic opinion-- but then again, if one (not you in particular) attempts to overly complicate a subject with something seemingly unrelated to the subject matter, often simplicity is best.

Meh. I could be wrong (are you listening?). :biggrin:

Edit 1: (BTW Grad: I didn't mean to write anything, just post the grade levels because I thought it was funny-- they are not connected to what I wrote. Also, I've had a few, so go easy. :biggrin:)

Edit 2: (The "are you listening" was directed at a supreme being, if that was unclear.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I'll try to be succinct and clearer and shuffle along:

While anti-positivism is fine and dandy, you wouldn't be able to discuss it without the real science that exists that created that fine computer of yours. It doesn't run on philosophical bents. If you are against positivism, I can understand. It may not provide all the answers. But positivism is not science. And when science works, you get to post ant-positivistic posts against science (not positivism) using the very computer that science has provided you.

If one limits themself to evolution then they have a problem, which has gone hilariously unaddressed in this forum when I bring it up, or ridiculed by those with no understanding of science or physics: evolutionary mechanisms are better understood, by a huge scale, than gravitational ones.

I, however, doubt that most that attempt to attack evolution with continuously disproved "scientific" arguments or with positivism believe that we will not, someday, discover that one of the four forces of physics cannot be described scientifically but is instead outside science's bounds.

Interestingly, and totally contradicting myself, if one force were to seem somehow the work of a deity it would be gravity: it seems to come from another world (dimension actually) according to many, leaked into ours, and explaining why gravity is so very weak. . .

Quite simply, anti-positivism is a position, and a philosophical way of thinking, and it may very well be the right one. However, if we are arguing about a singular subject, anti-positivism cannot describe to me, for instance, how speciation does or does not occur-- and science does, and it is right and demonstrably so. Evolution is NOT a philosophical subject matter. To say so is to construct an elaborate ruse to confound rather than to inform.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
kinch;1772872; said:
I'll try to be succinct and clearer and shuffle along:

While anti-positivism is fine and dandy, you wouldn't be able to discuss it without the real science that exists that created that fine computer of yours. It doesn't run on philosophical bents. If you are against positivism, I can understand. It may not provide all the answers. But positivism is not science. And when science works, you get to post ant-positivistic posts against science (not positivism) using the very computer that science has provided you.

If one limits themself to evolution then they have a problem, which has gone hilariously unaddressed in this forum when I bring it up, or ridiculed by those with no understanding of science or physics: evolutionary mechanisms are better understood, by a huge scale, than gravitational ones.

I, however, doubt that most that attempt to attack evolution with continuously disproved "scientific" arguments or with positivism believe that we will not, someday, discover that one of the four forces of physics cannot be described scientifically but is instead outside science's bounds.

Interestingly, and totally contradicting myself, if one force were to seem somehow the work of a deity it would be gravity: it seems to come from another world (dimension actually) according to many, leaked into ours, and explaining why gravity is so very weak. . .

Quite simply, anti-positivism is a position, and a philosophical way of thinking, and it may very well be the right one. However, if we are arguing about a singular subject, anti-positivism cannot describe to me, for instance, how speciation does or does not occur-- and science does, and it is right and demonstrably so. Evolution is NOT a philosophical subject matter. To say so is to construct an elaborate ruse to confound rather than to inform.
Click to expand...

I guess I can see where you thought my post-positivistic (not sure if that equals anti-positivism or not) critique of positivism was a swipe at evolutionary theory. After all, that is the subject of the thread and all here know where I stand on the issue.

However, my criticism was directed at Jake's anti-theism as supported by his hyper-positivistism, not at evolution.

I would also argue that the post-postivistic position allows for me to maintain the integrity of my "philosophical" position while using modern technology. My problems with positivism is not its ties to modern science, but to its claims to truth. Positivism understands scientific theories, laws, and principles as truth claims, in that they are expressions of reality. What I reject is the foundation of such claims. Rather, I take the post-positivistic perspective of scientific theories, laws, and principles as predictive conceptions that do a good job of forecasting the results we see in reality, but which are neutral on whether they actually are describing reality or not. In other words, the computer I am using to type this message is working as a result of good (or maybe I should say "good enough") predictive models, not because those models necessarily describe reality.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyegrad;1777299; said:
I guess I can see where you thought my post-positivistic (not sure if that equals anti-positivism or not) critique of positivism was a swipe at evolutionary theory. After all, that is the subject of the thread and all here know where I stand on the issue.

However, my criticism was directed at Jake's anti-theism as supported by his hyper-positivistism, not at evolution.

I would also argue that the post-postivistic position allows for me to maintain the integrity of my "philosophical" position while using modern technology. My problems with positivism is not its ties to modern science, but to its claims to truth. Positivism understands scientific theories, laws, and principles as truth claims, in that they are expressions of reality. What I reject is the foundation of such claims. Rather, I take the post-positivistic perspective of scientific theories, laws, and principles as predictive conceptions that do a good job of forecasting the results we see in reality, but which are neutral on whether they actually are describing reality or not. In other words, the computer I am using to type this message is working as a result of good (or maybe I should say "good enough") predictive models, not because those models necessarily describe reality.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, and I think I was missing the point of your beliefs in this matter. I will blame sleepiness, as otherwise I have only the capabilities of my own mind to blame. :)

I do see what you are saying though, and I respect and appreciate the validity of your position. I believe I was discussing something past you, rather than seeing what you really had to say.
 
Upvote 0
Jake;1772531; said:
And yet, I can say with 100% certainty that it makes a helluva lot more sense than "God did it!", as an explanation for anything. You could insert "The Easter Bunny" for "God" and have an equal probability of being correct. :wink2:
Click to expand...
And, yet, somehow you're satisfied with "everything that is came from absolute nothingness."

I, as you clearly do, reject the idea(s) bandied about by religion regarding what might be G-d's personality. But, setting all that aside, the idea of a creator is at least as satisfactory as saying "everything came from nothing"
 
Upvote 0
So... .Little Gretel AKAK is now 4....

And very curious as to where she came from...

Now, she gets that she came from Mommy's tummy....

But, being a much more logical thinker than I, she's working on how she got in mommy's tummy...

So, she asked, "Mommy, did you swallow me to get me in your tummy?"

Yeah, wrap your head around that.
 
Upvote 0
buffona1.gif
lucas-cranach-the-elder-adam-and-eve.jpg
adam-and-eve.jpg


Hmmm...something is definitely amiss. :huh:
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyeskickbuttocks;1777725; said:
And, yet, somehow you're satisfied with "everything that is came from absolute nothingness."

I, as you clearly do, reject the idea(s) bandied about by religion regarding what might be G-d's personality. But, setting all that aside, the idea of a creator is at least as satisfactory as saying "everything came from nothing"
Click to expand...

Not sure who you were quoting but it wasn't me. I have no problem saying "I don't know" when it comes to the origins of the universe. The notion that the bible creation tale is valid until an alternate theory can be proven is completely illogical. The creation tale is nonsense until it can provide evidence to support itself. Good luck with that.

Meanwhile, there's a bigger question: when did god create all of this, and why doesn't the bible mention anything about it?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GJAZWB8HFE&noredirect=1"]IC 1011 - YouTube[/ame]

The obvious answer is the writers of the bible had no clue about astronomy, which is why the bible easily filled the ignorance void - answering questions that had no answers. Of course, to continue to accept it as factual in the 21st century requires a large pile of sand and an intense desire to bury one's head in it. Once that choice has been made, however, debate is futile.

It is impossible to use logic to change an opinion that wasn't arrived at by using logic in the first place. You have chosen to believe because you want to believe, and by god you're going to believe no matter what. Have fun with that.
 
Upvote 0
Jake;2141387; said:
The notion that the bible creation tale is valid until an alternate theory can be proven is completely illogical.
Click to expand...

Not so. Physicist Gerald Schroeder breaks it down rather well in the following book:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132"]Amazon.com: Genesis and the Big Bang: The Discovery Of Harmony Between Modern Science And The Bible (9780553354133): Gerald Schroeder: Books[/ame]

51nIssZRnWL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg


And maybe I'm jumping the gun, because I presume that your use of the "completely illogical" statement is based on a YEC/literalist view of the Genesis story. Is that correct?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top