Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #1

Post by Diogenes »

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.
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

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Glaring Inconsistency in the Use of Science

Post #71

Post by brunumb »

Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:34 pm Human observation shows that life only comes from previous life, and that the beauty, harmony and order of the Universe cannot occur by chance.
Humans 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.

User avatar
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 #72

Post by Miles »

Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:34 pm It is a gesture of honesty, recognizing that believers do not have to prove with evidence acceptable to atheists that God exists.
Truthfully, 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.

Can atheists consider any proof that God does not exist?
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.

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.
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?

Human observation shows that life only comes from previous life, and that the beauty, harmony and order of the Universe cannot occur by chance.
Really! What is this observation?


.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
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 #73

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Eloi wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:34 pm It is a gesture of honesty, recognizing that believers do not have to prove with evidence acceptable to atheists that God exists. Can atheists consider any proof that God does not exist?
Of course believers don't hafta show their beliefs / claims are true.

Cause they can't.

Yet in debate, the expectation remains.
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.
Feasibility is not always equal to truth.
Human observation shows that life only comes from previous life,
I ask again, do you contend atoms are living entities?
and that the beauty, harmony and order of the Universe cannot occur by chance.
Then ugly, disharmony, and disorder show the universe must have come about 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

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
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 #74

Post by JoeyKnothead »

When one of the wheelbarrow brains thanks your post...

Image
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
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 #75

Post by The Barbarian »

Tcg wrote: Tue Apr 19, 2022 11:32 am Oh, my. Faking evidence of evolution is not a denial of God. A great many theists accept the fact of evolution. Besides that, the Piltdown man was exposed as a fake long ago. And guess what was used to do so... yep, science.
Tcg
More 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.

User avatar
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

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #75]
... we don't know who it was who faked the find ...
It appears some modern day sleuthing has pointed even more fingers at the most prominent suspect (Charles Dawson):

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

User avatar
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 #77

Post by The Barbarian »

DrNoGods wrote: Thu May 05, 2022 7:19 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #75]
... we don't know who it was who faked the find ...
It appears some modern day sleuthing has pointed even more fingers at the most prominent suspect (Charles Dawson):

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.
Stephen 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.

Post Reply