A point-by-point refutation of "Is Evolution Science" by Lucas Nuckols

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Lucas Nuckols has written an essay about Evolution raising a number of points. I plan to refute this essay point-by-point (hopefully). Also just for fun, I'll keep a fallacy count!

Edit, it may not be in-order, but hopefully I'll cover all the material.

First up: Lucas Nuckols opening paragraph!

According to a Gallup poll, less than forty percent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution. This poll sends a clear message that there are huge flaws in the theory of evolution (Gallup, 2009).

Umm... That's just a logical fallacy! argumentum ad populum. So we'll disregard that.

Number of fallacies so far:1

This survey is very shocking and is quite contrary to what is promoted by most of the evolutionist media sources, such as “National Geographic,” “Scientific American,” “Nova,” and more. These sources often attempt to lead people to believe that evolution is a fact and that almost everyone believes in it.

Evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community, anyone who had an education should know this. Also, the general public shouldn't really matter when deciding matters of science. We didn't vote for General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics!. Also I'm fairly confident that National Geographic doesn't use the argumentum ad populum fallacy to support Evolution, when it has fossils and observed instance of speciation, observed instances of beneficial mutations, genetic evidence, and quite a bit more. Why would you use logical fallacies, when you have mountains of evidence? It doesn't really make sense.

Most atheistic evolutionists (not all) believe that the universe started with a “Big Bang,” a huge explosion that created the universe. They do not know where this energy came from or why it took place. They believe after a long period of time rocks were formed out of that explosion. Many evolutionists believe that after the “Big Bang” there was a “primordial soup” for millions of years, and out of that primordial soup a simple life form developed. After millions and millions of years that simple life form progressed to more “complex” life forms through series of mutations into where we are today.

This is probably the one of the worst straw-man of the big-bang theory I've seen. Not only do us atheistic "evolutionists" not believe that crock of garbage, but it's just plain ridiculous. This man is intellectually dishonest, I'll bet he knows full-well that atheists don't believe this rubbish.

Number of fallacies so far:2

I'll try and explain the big-bang in my own words... It may not go too well, I'm not a cosmologist after all... Also, if I'm wrong on the details, please correct me.

Here goes:

13.3-13.9 Billion Years ago, all the entire universe was contained an a small singularity. This includes all the laws of nature, all the energy, all the matter space, and time itself. For some reason unknown to us yet, the universe expanded extremely quickly, during a period known as the inflationary epoch. This very first moments of this expansion gave rise to matter, space, time and the laws of physics, such as gravity. Sub-atomic particles like quarks and leptons are formed from the newly born universe. Then over around three minutes, atomic nuclei begin to form. After about a about 400 000 years, the universe has cooled enough for the nuclei to capture electrons. This universe then cools and expands further, resulting in the formation of stars, galaxies and eventually planets.

My explanation is probably terrible, but at least it represents the theory a whole lot better.

Anyway onto the second paragraph:

There is often confusion as to what exactly evolution means, since there are so many types of evolution, such as cosmic evolution, stellar evolution, macroevolution, microevolution, and chemical evolution, and others.

I get the feeling, there isn't. When I hear the theory of evolution I think of biological evolution! The other "types" of evolution aren't really relavent, so I'll leave them be.

The only evolution that we see happening today is microevolution, which according to Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary means “comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level” (2009).

That's just plain wrong. Sure, he got the defintion of microevolution correct, but the bit about all the others not being observed is just wrong. Macroevolution is evolution that occurs above the species level. So new species are evolving is macroevolution. There are plenty of examples of this, some are here. And I can name several: The Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas), the Lab Rat Worm (Lab Rat Worm) and Maize (Zea mays).

Microevolution is accepted as a fact by most scientists, and it should not be confused with the others in reference to evolution. The others types of evolution have never been actually seen or observed happening, so there is no concrete evidence to support the theory that these types of evolution are happening.

WHAT? That's rubbish! There's plenty of evidence for the others. Humans have seen stars die and be born (stellar evolution), we've seen them ageing, we've seen galaxies in the various stages of development (cosmic evolution), we've produced chemical evolution (fusion reactors, hydrogen bombs etc.), and we know it powers stars. Also there's background radiation from the big-bang that's being picked up by telescopes (cosmic evolution). That statement is just plain wrong. Almost all types of evolution are accepted as fact within the scientific community! (Though Cosmic evolution isn't really a subject though, it's a bit too broad) Especially microevolution and macroevolution. All the scientists agree that this happens, it's just the details they debate.

Okay, next paragraph.

Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution in 1837 (1859, p.27). He was on the H.M.S Beagle during a voyage in the Galapagos Islands and noticed the variety of beaks the finches had there, which sparked his interest to study natural selection. By studying natural selection he came up with the theory of evolution and printed his book, The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, in 1859.

This isn't really of any concern, so I'll let that stand.

Since the publishing of Darwin's book, there have been heated debates on the topic of the origin of life, which have sparked court battles, such as “The Scopes Monkey Trial”. The monkey trial, according to Douglas Linder (n.d.), took place in July of 1925 (para. 7). Even though “The Scopes Monkey Trial” was a major court battle, the debate of the origin of life is still unresolved. Thus, the theory of evolution should be questioned closely by more scientists and not treated like a scientific law, because there is very little evidence for it.

Sorry, there's plenty of evidence for evolution, in fact a whole book is devoted to it; "The Greatest Show on Earth" by Richard Dawkins. Some of the things mentioned are artificial selection (dog-breeders, farmers etc.), fossils (especially transition forms), genetics (comparing genomes), comparative anatomy, and observed instances of evolution (lizards evolving appendixes over a few decades, bacteria evolving to change their diet, etc.) That last statement is just false!

Additionally the theory of evolution has little to do with describing the origin of life. There is a whole different theory to cover that - it's called Abiogenesis. Also, what was legal back in the 1920s, has little to do with what is true.

There are also major flaws in the theory of evolution, such as irreducibly complex systems, lack of transitional fossils, genetics, and evidence for a younger earth. Apart from very little evidence for evolution and numerous data that does not support the theory, evolution also devalues life. If this topic is looked at objectively, creation science is by far a more logical explanation.

There are few to no flaws with the theory of evolution, it does exactly what it sets out to do. Irreducibly complex systems don't exist, transitional fossils have been found, genetics provides plenty of evidence for evolution, and there is plenty of evidence for a 4.5 Billion year old Earth. Also creation science is illogical, and requires the supernatural to work. Therefore, it isn't scientific. Additionally there is no method of falsifying creationism, making it even less scientific. Also, where in nature is evidence for creation science?

The problem with the theory of evolution is not only with irreducibly complex systems; it has yet another problem: macroevolution. Macroevolution is, according to Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, “evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)” (2009). “Species formation” is referring to changes outside a species, e.g., a chicken evolving into a hamster.

Okay, that's really bad, I think that's a straw-man, raising the fallacy count to 3. I mean a chicken evolving into a hamster, that's ridiculous!

There is only one problem with macroevolution, and that is that there is no proof for it. This may seem like a rash statement, because evolution has been accepted as a fact by so many of the scientists and other individuals today. By looking at all the new discoveries in the field of science and scientific facts known, there is no proof found for changes outside a species. There are other problems with this conclusion that Darwin made.

Okay, that is just plain wrong, visit that link and you'll see a whole number of observed instances of speciation. In fact just google observed instances of speciation! Also, what about transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx or Australopithecus, one half bird- half dinosaur the other half-human and half ape respectively. In fact there are a whole number of fossils that show how the horse, or how us humans, or how birds evolved.

Oooh, I sense another paragraph!

One major problem with the theory of evolution is that of irreducibly complex systems. According to Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box, an “irreducibly complex system” cannot be made by minute, consecutive changes of a previous system, since any change to remove a part of an “irreducibly complex system” will result in non-functionality (1996). This means that if one part is missing, the whole system will fail. The problem that challenges the theory of evolution is that an organism cannot evolve if it cannot live with one part missing. Michael Behe (1996) gives an example of a mousetrap as an irreducibly complex mechanism. The mousetrap has five basic parts to it: hammer, spring, catch, holding bar, and platform. If any one of these parts were missing, the whole mousetrap would fail to function (pp. 42-43).

These people don't understand that structures can evolve indirectly, so any so called irreducibly complex structure could have actually evolved indirectly. Evolving first as something, and then taking that something and evolving it into something else! Also the mention of the mousetrap is pure gold! Kenneth Miller debunked the Mousetrap as an irreducibly complex system! Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically, if you were to take out the catch and the holding bar you get a working tie-clip. Therefore an incomplete mousetrap has a use, and isn't irreducibly complex!

This is the same way with irreducibly complex systems, such as the eye. The eye is a good example of an irreducibly complex system because if one part was taken out of the eye, such as the lens, the retina, iris, cornea, or optic nerve, the eye would be a totally useless system. In fact, Charles Darwin (1858) said it best when he wrote in his book, The Origin of Species, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications my theory would absolutely break down” (p.171). What Darwin wrote here is ironic, not only because he came up with the theory of evolution and will admit this, but because most other evolutionists today will not even acknowledge this. At the time when Darwin came up with the theory of evolution, he did not know about irreducibly complex systems like scientists do today. These irreducibly complex systems prove a major flaw in the theory of evolution.

What's even more ironic is that Darwin then describes how the eye may have evolved! In fact there are no examples of irreducibly complex systems, because all of them still function with parts removed. They may not do the same job, but they will have a use!

Let's take the example of the eye. It' is called an irreducibly complex system, but I'll get to that in one of my quotes.

Now imagine you had eyes without lenses, (these things actually exist, Flatworm eyes actually lack a lens and much more) You can detect light, dark and colour. Your vision would be very blurry and perhaps incoherent, but you still can tell day from night, or perhaps a sunny day from a cloudy one. It would allow you to see well enough to stop you walking off a cliff or getting run over by a truck. Thus, an eye without a lens, has use and cannot be considered irreducibly complex.

See, the eye isn't irreducibly complex.

In fact the whole irreducibly complex argument is an argument from ignorance. I think this is the chain of logic it follows:

1. I have a structure. The structure is complicated.
2. This structure must have an origin. However I don't know how it evolved.
3. Due to the fact that I don't know how it evolved, it couldn't have evolved.
4. Therefore the structure is irreducibly complex.

This raises the fallacy count to 4! And with that, I'm getting tired of this... I think this is going to be the last point I'm going to address.

One of these problems is in the genetic code. The genetic code can change within the species from generation to generation, but it cannot have new information added to it. For instance, a person could take a wolf and pick out one trait like a black colored coat, and then breed it for several generations until all they would get are black wolf puppies. A person then could breed them with other homozygous (a genotype were both alleles are the same) black wolves, but you will not get brown ones. With those wolves, the genetic information is being lost, and after several generations the only color of wolves they could get would be black. The way evolutionists explain this is that there are mutations happening which give the animal an advantage over another. In theory that might sound good, but there has never been a beneficial mutation, and mutations have never added new information; they only take away something already there or add an extra arm, leg, or even head, from the information already in the DNA code. Dr. Jay Wile states “The hypothesis of macroevolution assumes that a given life form has an unlimited ability to change. This means that some process must exist to add information to the creature genetic code...there is precious little data supporting such a hypothesis and quite a lot of data contradicting it” (p. 281,1998). Maciej Giertych, a former professor of genetics to various universities in Poland said, “I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I could not give an example (para 8, 1995).” Unlike Maciej, many professors and scientists are not closely examining what they are teaching but rather just repeating what they read in their text books. As a result of parroting text books, evolutionists are not looking at science for answers to the origin of life, they are looking at the theory of evolution and trying to fit science into it. This type of approach to science does not work and never has.

Numerous beneficial mutations have been observed in nature, this adds information to the gene pool. It's happened. There is NO evidence to suggest that "information" can't be added to the gene pool. There have been mutations in Humans that lower rates of heart disease that have sprung up fairly recently. Also in 1975 after the invention of Nylon, a bacteria was found that had developed a mutation to eat nylon!. This means that information is being added to the genetic code. This point is just wrong! Also Meciej must be a very poor geneticist, seeing as I have named two beneficial mutations and I'm not a scientist. Additionally Meciej's words may have been quote mined.

Also I think the quotes of the scientists are ad-vericundums so that raises the fallacy count to 5! This guy is amazing, he make so many fallacies in such a short time!

 

[Dre89]

I know I'm not a DHer, but there were plenty of things I disagree with here, but because I'm not a DHer I'm not gonna argue them, but there is one thing I wanted to point out which I'm pretty sure the DHers weren't going to state;

Also creation science is illogical, and requires the supernatural to work. Therefore, it isn't scientific. Additionally there is no method of falsifying creationism, making it even less scientific.

You assume that because something is unfalsiable or not scientific it is wrong, that's a dangerous assumption to make.

Actually, it's not really unfalsiable anyway. Relgions aside (which I would agree are probably unfalsifiable), several God theories are concluded simply because people feel that we understand how natural entities work, and that none of them could have been a self-necessary existence responsible for all other existences in the universe. I'm not saying that those theories are necessarily right, but because we understand the essence of natural entities, making claims about them can be falsiable.

Also, where in nature is evidence for creation science?

Essentially, you're asking for evidence of phenoma that is beyond nature in nature, which is of course illogical. Also, many would argue that the evidence in nature is that no natural entities are self-necessary, therefore couldn't be the original existence.

Also, you're ignoring the validity of pre-rational evidence. Thousands of people have experienced spiritual phenomena, I've heard personal accounts, and have experienced it myself, I'm not talking about possible dellusions, I'm talking about experiencing phenomena which require external influences, or external information that a dellusion of the mind simply could not have attained (for example I know someone who had a dream of her father speaking to her in a language she didn't know, which she later found out to say' your soul will always live on').


It doesn't matter whether you say this stuff classes as scientific evidence or not, this stuff happens regardless. I personally have experienced it myself, and so have thousands of other people, I've also spoken to people who've experienced the same phenomena as me, which require external information.

By your logic, God could reveal Himself to you, or you could have a dream where someone speaks to you in a language you don't understand and correctly predicts your future, but because it is pre-rational and not scientific, you would say it didn't happen, or that stuff doesn't exist.

 

[Sucumbio]

I know I'm not a DHer, but there were plenty of things I disagree with here, but because I'm not a DHer I'm not gonna argue them

No argue them, it's our ability to debate that's being watched, so if you have tons of things you wanna point out and debate DO IT, the more you do, the more evidence CK has to warrant your inclusion in the DH.

As for the OP, I haven't read it yet, I'll do so soon...

 

[Dre89]

My arguments would just be largely the same things as in my debate, and because my arguments are more controversial it would likely turn the attention onto them instead of his, which I don't really wanna do.

The arguments I specifically addressed in my previous post are ones which I felt his scope was too narrow and needed to be expanded.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I know I'm not a DHer, but there were plenty of things I disagree with here, but because I'm not a DHer I'm not gonna argue them, but there is one thing I wanted to point out which I'm pretty sure the DHers weren't going to state;

You assume that because something is unfalsiable or not scientific it is wrong, that's a dangerous assumption to make.

Actually, it's not really unfalsiable anyway. Relgions aside (which I would agree are probably unfalsifiable), several God theories are concluded simply because people feel that we understand how natural entities work, and that none of them could have been a self-necessary existence responsible for all other existences in the universe. I'm not saying that those theories are necessarily right, but because we understand the essence of natural entities, making claims about them can be falsiable.

Essentially, you're asking for evidence of phenoma that is beyond nature in nature, which is of course illogical. Also, many would argue that the evidence in nature is that no natural entities are self-necessary, therefore couldn't be the original existence.

I'm saying that for Creation Science shouldn't be called a science. And that is rather hypocritical when calling evolution unscientific. Also, if something requires magic, it doesn't really mean that it's completely undetectable! Additionally, the various hypotheses (dare I even call them that!) that the creationists have put forward, often should leave evidence of some sort. No trace of this evidence has been found.

When I referred to the unfalsifiable, I was referring to the existence of a god and the argument that "God made it to look like things evolved." Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Also, you're ignoring the validity of pre-rational evidence. Thousands of people have experienced spiritual phenomena, I've heard personal accounts, and have experienced it myself, I'm not talking about possible dellusions, I'm talking about experiencing phenomena which require external influences, or external information that a dellusion of the mind simply could not have attained (for example I know someone who had a dream of her father speaking to her in a language she didn't know, which she later found out to say' your soul will always live on').

It doesn't matter whether you say this stuff classes as scientific evidence or not, this stuff happens regardless. I personally have experienced it myself, and so have thousands of other people, I've also spoken to people who've experienced the same phenomena as me, which require external information.

By your logic, God could reveal Himself to you, or you could have a dream where someone speaks to you in a language you don't understand and correctly predicts your future, but because it is pre-rational and not scientific, you would say it didn't happen, or that stuff doesn't exist.

What I want to know is, how do you know that the external influence is God? Or even why does it have to even be external? I know these phenomena exist, but just because we can't currently explain them or never will doesn't mean God's behind the curtain pulling the strings. Also trying to use them to prove something as if they had some extra meaning is unscientific. I dislike using subjective fluff to make large decisions about how the universe works.

 

[Dre89]

I'm saying that for Creation Science shouldn't be called a science. And that is rather hypocritical when calling evolution unscientific. Also, if something requires magic, it doesn't really mean that it's completely undetectable! Additionally, the various hypotheses (dare I even call them that!) that the creationists have put forward, often should leave evidence of some sort. No trace of this evidence has been found.

I'd agree creation science is probably more of a philosophy than a science, but that doesn't make it invalid.

What I'm trying to say is that evolution theories, or evolutionists often ignore the fact that these phenomena occur. If you're going to argue that evolution exists, then you have suppose that we somehow evolved the ability to communicate with people in their dreams, communicate with the dead, have incorruptible dead bodies, have visual perception that doesn't project from the eyes etc. I'm not saying this means evolution doesn't happen, but you have to account for why these phenomena occur, but most evolution theories don't.

Also, as I tried to say before, certain theories of God are not unfalsiable, and do have evidence (allegedly). For example, we don't need science to understand essences. We don't need science to understand that truth cannot be false, the potential to be false is not part of the essence of truth. In the same way, we understand the essence of natural entities, therefore it can be argued that these natural entities could not be responsible for the existence of the universe.

Whether or not the theories are correct, they still can be falsifiable. For example, I could say that natural entities are all ends in themselves, when in reality we know all natural entities are not ends in themselves, but rather means to and end. Here I just provided a falsiable statement not reliant on science.

On the same token, it can be argued that the evidence that a divine being must exist is in the fact that no natural entity possess the capability to have initiated the existence of the universe.

Also, creationists can use spiritual phenomena as evidence of a higher being.

What I want to know is, how do you know that the external influence is God? Or even why does it have to even be external? I know these phenomena exist, but just because we can't currently explain them or never will doesn't mean God's behind the curtain pulling the strings. Also trying to use them to prove something as if they had some extra meaning is unscientific. I dislike using subjective fluff to make large decisions about how the universe works.

It depends what you mean by God. Does this stuff show that the God of religions exist? No. Does this show that there is least some form of existence beyond the bounds of nature, and that has a different essence to that of natural entities? Yes.

Also, when I say 'external', I'm saying that information was received in the phenomena that wasn't already known by the witness. For example, my father claims to have seen Jesus in the clouds when he was 12, this very well could have possibly been a dellusion.

However, the lady who had a dream where her late father came to her and said 'you soul will always live on' in a language she didn't understand, or when the atheist went to a psychic, and had the psychic talk of his dad without him saying a single word to her, required external information that they could have already known. Or when people have 'out of body' experiences, where they attain a visual perception from above their body, so they are looking down on their head/face and the rest of their body, or when the mysertious Homily effect happens to several unrelated Catholics, it requires external influences they could not have conjured up through dellusion.

The point of bringing up these phenomena is to point out that there are things in the universe, or perhaps beyond the universe, which evolution doesn't account for.

Again, saying something is 'unscientific' does not mean it is not valid. Several facts have been concluded without science. For example, we didn't need science to know that truth exists in the world, or that people have experienced these phenomena. The very fact that science, or scientific method, is valid (only for certain things) was concluded through philosophy, not science. As mentioned before, having God reveal Himself to you is probably the strongest evidence you could have of God's existence, yet it is not scientific.

Anyway, I'm not a DHer and I don't want to derail this topic, so we'll just leave it at that, I think we've both made our points anyway, continuing this debate will probably just result in pointless banter. I wish you best of luck in your attemps to make it into the Debate Hall.

 

[Eor]

What I'm trying to say is that evolution theories, or evolutionists often ignore the fact that these phenomena occur. If you're going to argue that evolution exists, then you have suppose that we somehow evolved the ability to communicate with people in their dreams, communicate with the dead, have incorruptible dead bodies, have visual perception that doesn't project from the eyes etc. I'm not saying this means evolution doesn't happen, but you have to account for why these phenomena occur, but most evolution theories don't.

First, you'd have to prove that those do occur. There are plenty of personal claims about those, but there are also personal claims of bigfoot, Loch Ness monster, alien abductions, and so forth. For any of that to be considered true, there would need to be evidence for it. Evidence has to be objective and verifiable information. For all of those ESP claims, none of them have been verified, none of them have any valid evidence for it. Objective evidence means that the test is impartial, and the verification part simply meaning that these suppose "ESP' things can be verified. Not a single claim has ever managed to do that.

Whether or not the theories are correct, they still can be falsifiable. For example, I could say that natural entities are all ends in themselves, when in reality we know all natural entities are not ends in themselves, but rather means to and end. Here I just provided a falsiable statement not reliant on science.

But that is reliant on science, because it's our study of natural entities that would falsify or prove your statement.

On the same token, it can be argued that the evidence that a divine being must exist is in the fact that no natural entity possess the capability to have initiated the existence of the universe.

There is no reason to assume there was an initiation in the universe. That would imply that time started before, or at, the singularity, but time didn't start until the singularity started to expand. At the same point, your claim that there is no natural entity that could possess the capability to do so is not true. We don't know enough about singularities to make that claim.

It depends what you mean by God. Does this stuff show that the God of religions exist? No. Does this show that there is least some form of existence beyond the bounds of nature, and that has a different essence to that of natural entities? Yes.

What does that even mean, beyond the bounds of nature? If we accept nature as the Universe, then that means everything we physically perceive to exist. If there was a God or something of that sort that could interact with the universe, then it would be a part of it.

Again, saying something is 'unscientific' does not mean it is not valid. Several facts have been concluded without science. For example, we didn't need science to know that truth exists in the world, or that people have experienced these phenomena. The very fact that science, or scientific method, is valid (only for certain things) was concluded through philosophy, not science. As mentioned before, having God reveal Himself to you is probably the strongest evidence you could have of God's existence, yet it is not scientific.

Actually you're 100% wrong. We do need science to prove that there are truths in the world. The whole realization that the universe is not chaotic, that some things happen and others don't, is the basis of science. If we had no science, we would be incapable of making any predictions, ever, and so it'd be impossible to know if something is true or not.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Anyway, I'm not a DHer and I don't want to derail this topic, so we'll just leave it at that, I think we've both made our points anyway, continuing this debate will probably just result in pointless banter. I wish you best of luck in your attemps to make it into the Debate Hall.

You to by the way. Just a question, do you accept evolution as a fact? I would like to know. Also about all the subjective experiences involving information that the people had not known earlier, is more likely to be evidence of Jung's collective subconscious than for god, by way of Occam's Razor, at least in my opinion.

Also I think I may have made an error, when I stated that there were no to few flaws in the theory of evolution, I was wrong. There are a few flaws. However, they are comparatively minor in comparison to the flaws in biblical literalism and most of the flaws or debate that occurs within the scientific community over evolution is about how evolution happens and not about whether it happens.

Dang, I wish Eor didn't step in and take my spot... I would have had quite a bit of fun trying to refute that...

 

[Dre89]

Eor there's a million things I could have said in response to your post, but I really could not be bothered at the moment. However there is one thing I will comment on-

Actually you're 100% wrong. We do need science to prove that there are truths in the world. The whole realization that the universe is not chaotic, that some things happen and others don't, is the basis of science. If we had no science, we would be incapable of making any predictions, ever, and so it'd be impossible to know if something is true or not.

Science was invented by a philosopher.

You speak of how only science can deduce truth, yet the belief that scientific method could deduce truth came from philosophical logic, not science.

Basically, another method of deducing truth (philosophy) was required to create science, therefore disproving your claim that only science can deduce truth.

Philosophy proceeds all methodologies, because philosophy is logic. All methodoligies are only applied because of the philosophy that they are accurate.

I think you're confusing science with logic. Science is only one form of applying of logic.

 

[Eor]

Science was invented by a philosopher.

You speak of how only science can deduce truth, yet the belief that scientific method could deduce truth came from philosophical logic, not science.

Basically, another method of deducing truth (philosophy) was required to create science, therefore disproving your claim that only science can deduce truth.

Philosophy proceeds all methodologies, because philosophy is logic. All methodoligies are only applied because of the philosophy that they are accurate.

I think you're confusing science with logic. Science is only one form of applying of logic.

I'm sorry, but how does saying that Philosophy comes first mean that it can be put at the same candle of science?

I figure now we have to give our definitions of philosophy. When I was debating with you I was using the word philosophy to discuss natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy. I was not refering to simple reasoning.

I figure I should clarify more about what I said, because it does seem to come out different from what I meant. What I meant is that science is needed to prove something. We can use reasoning and logic, but that can only take us so far. For example, Quantum mechanics is not logical. the uncertainty principle isn't very logical. Most of the theories of general relativity are not things we can really gasp. But we can still test and make theories of them.

When I say science I do not mean modern science. As we can define science, it's simply something that can make a prediction and can be tested. Whether or not people were calling it science or not doesn't really matter. So by that standard, I'd consider "Natural Philosophy" to be science when it lined up evidence and so forth. What I wouldn't consider to be science would be someone pondering about the nature of time through logical without giving any weight to empirical evidence, and then not accepting the empirical evidence due to their idea of logic.

 

[Dre89]

I'm sorry, but how does saying that Philosophy comes first mean that it can be put at the same candle of science?

I figure now we have to give our definitions of philosophy. When I was debating with you I was using the word philosophy to discuss natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy. I was not refering to simple reasoning.

I figure I should clarify more about what I said, because it does seem to come out different from what I meant. What I meant is that science is needed to prove something. We can use reasoning and logic, but that can only take us so far. For example, Quantum mechanics is not logical. the uncertainty principle isn't very logical. Most of the theories of general relativity are not things we can really gasp. But we can still test and make theories of them.

When I say science I do not mean modern science. As we can define science, it's simply something that can make a prediction and can be tested. Whether or not people were calling it science or not doesn't really matter. So by that standard, I'd consider "Natural Philosophy" to be science when it lined up evidence and so forth. What I wouldn't consider to be science would be someone pondering about the nature of time through logical without giving any weight to empirical evidence, and then not accepting the empirical evidence due to their idea of logic.

I'm curious to know what the empirical evidence is for the fact that there is truth in the world.

Also, has there been any empirical evidence for morality? If not, are you to say that we have no right to assume that morality exists until there is empirical evidence?

Also, where was the empirical evidence for the fact that empirical evidence is the most valid? Or the scientific proof that scientific methology accurately deduces truth?

 

[GoldShadow]

Also, where was the empirical evidence for the fact that empirical evidence is the most valid? Or the scientific proof that scientific methology accurately deduces truth?

Dre, you're on some sort of metaphysical high horse, or going off on some "how do we know anything is real?", "maybe nothing is real, it's just our perception", "what if we're in the matrix?" tangent.

An object in a vacuum on earth is found to fall at 9.8 m/s^2. Frozen water has a density of 0.92 g/cm^3. Quantum physics measurably explains numerous phenomena in the universe. That's the science we're talking about.

You need to get on the same page as everyone else. "How do we know anything is real" is a very philosophical question, and it's an interesting one. But it is not related to the argument at hand except on a very superficial level.

 

[Dre89]

Dre, you're on some sort of metaphysical high horse, or going off on some "how do we know anything is real?", "maybe nothing is real, it's just our perception", "what if we're in the matrix?" tangent.

An object in a vacuum on earth is found to fall at 9.8 m/s^2. Frozen water has a density of 0.92 g/cm^3. Quantum physics measurably explains numerous phenomena in the universe. That's the science we're talking about.

You need to get on the same page as everyone else. "How do we know anything is real" is a very philosophical question, and it's an interesting one. But it is not related to the argument at hand except on a very superficial level.

My point in proposing those question was not to be on a metaphysical high horse, it was to show that there are truths in the world we have deduced without scientific methodology.

I don't seriously question whether we exist or not, thinking is being lol.

Science applies a set methodology to deduce truth. It was philosophy that determined that that methodology would accurately deduce truth.

There are just certain things which science can't tell us.

 

[Eor]

I'm curious to know what the empirical evidence is for the fact that there is truth in the world.

Also, has there been any empirical evidence for morality? If not, are you to say that we have no right to assume that morality exists until there is empirical evidence?

Also, where was the empirical evidence for the fact that empirical evidence is the most valid? Or the scientific proof that scientific methology accurately deduces truth?

Sure. For example, 2+2=4. How can I prove that? By doing the math. Or by getting two things, then two more things, and putting them together, then counting them and realizing there are four things. Therefore, 2+2=4 is true.

Empirical evidence for morality is simple. Mainly, people believe in morality, and have a set of morals. People act based on their morality. Therefore, we can look at how people act, and why they act like that, and come up with evidence that morality exists, at least as a human or social construct.

The scientific method can be proven true by the scientific method. Hypothesis, method is false. Go through the steps, and come to conclusion. The scientific method isn't the only way to come to truths, but it is the most valid way, and if something is true it would work through the scientific method.

Now for your question of empirical evidence for that, it's actually pretty simple. The fact that it's still around, and has been used to solve all sorts of problems, and come up with almost all of our modern knowledge of the world, is the empirical evidence needed that it's good.

Empirical evidence for empirical evidence? That would just go on a never ending loop. If I gave anything, then it would be "well where's the empirical evidence for that evidence?". At the same point, I'd say "where's the logic for logic?". They'd come down to the same thing. Reasoning. We can reason that empirical evidence is the best way to discover things because it's based on direct observance of the things we're studying. Now if you want to claim that as a victory for your side, then go ahead. I'm not going to try and deny the important of reasoning.

 

[Dre89]

Empirical evidence for morality is simple. Mainly, people believe in morality, and have a set of morals. People act based on their morality. Therefore, we can look at how people act, and why they act like that, and come up with evidence that morality exists, at least as a human or social construct.

You've only proven that people believe there is some form of morality. You haven't proved if there is an objective morality, and if so what it is, or if morality is subjective or even if it is a dellusion all together.

So what emprical evidence is there for what is the truth about morality? Are you to say we should not bother with it because there is none?

Now for your question of empirical evidence for that, it's actually pretty simple. The fact that it's still around, and has been used to solve all sorts of problems, and come up with almost all of our modern knowledge of the world, is the empirical evidence needed that it's good.

But doesn't the same go for philosophy too? Pretty much all thinking is philosophy, and thinking has done so much for the world.

Of course I'm not arguing that science isn't valid. It is of great use to the world, but it doesn't hold authority over everything.

Take for example spiritual phenomena, we aware spirtual phenomena occurs, are we to say that because science can't prove it it didn't happen?

I couldn't believe me eyes when I saw someone in an old thread say that we shouldn't beleive in the soul because it's not scientifically proven.

 

[Eor]

You've only proven that people believe there is some form of morality. You haven't proved if there is an objective morality, and if so what it is, or if morality is subjective or even if it is a dellusion all together.

So what emprical evidence is there for what is the truth about morality? Are you to say we should not bother with it because there is none?

I haven't proved there is objective morality because such a thing is impossible to prove. Morality depends on opinions, which are not scientific facts. The fact that opinions exist is observable, the fact that people believe in morality is observable. The fact that morality helps human society, and that society helps advancement, is observable. So no, I don't believe there is a universal morality. Morality is relevant. I believe this because I can observe that societies and people have different moralities, but many believe that there morality is better then others. For example, I think my moral ethics are better then most. But I would not claim that as a fact. I'd argue for it, and live by it, but I wouldn't consider it a fact.

But doesn't the same go for philosophy too? Pretty much all thinking is philosophy, and thinking has done so much for the world.

Of course I'm not arguing that science isn't valid. It is of great use to the world, but it doesn't hold authority over everything.

Take for example spiritual phenomena, we aware spirtual phenomena occurs, are we to say that because science can't prove it it didn't happen?

I couldn't believe me eyes when I saw someone in an old thread say that we shouldn't beleive in the soul because it's not scientifically proven.

Oh lawdy.

No, we are not aware spiritual phenomena occurs. We should not believe in it unless we can test it.

Oh wait, those people who claim they have spiritual powers (or ghost sightings or so forth) have been tested. And they've been proven false. Every single time. Continuing to believe in it is simply because someone wants it to be true, and not because it's more likely that it is.

And for the soul, I say people should believe in it if they want to. But there is no evidence for a soul. None at all. Even philosophically I don't believe in a soul. I reject the concept of a permanent "self" that I can identify with. All the mind states that I have change constantly, and don't reside anywhere. They come and go. My personality changes as I age. My body changes as I age. What can I point to and say "this is me?". The only thing that I could define as "Eor" is the stream of mind states/changes my body makes, a sort of empirical self, composed of constantly changing physical and mental phenomenon. Because I am always changing, there isn't a "self" I can latch on to.

Also, I'm not rejecting the usefulness of philosophy. All that I am objecting to is using philosophy over empirical evidence.

 

[Dre89]

I haven't proved there is objective morality because such a thing is impossible to prove. Morality depends on opinions, which are not scientific facts. The fact that opinions exist is observable, the fact that people believe in morality is observable. The fact that morality helps human society, and that society helps advancement, is observable. So no, I don't believe there is a universal morality. Morality is relevant. I believe this because I can observe that societies and people have different moralities, but many believe that there morality is better then others. For example, I think my moral ethics are better then most. But I would not claim that as a fact. I'd argue for it, and live by it, but I wouldn't consider it a fact.





Oh lawdy.

No, we are not aware spiritual phenomena occurs. We should not believe in it unless we can test it.

Oh wait, those people who claim they have spiritual powers (or ghost sightings or so forth) have been tested. And they've been proven false. Every single time. Continuing to believe in it is simply because someone wants it to be true, and not because it's more likely that it is.

And for the soul, I say people should believe in it if they want to. But there is no evidence for a soul. None at all. Even philosophically I don't believe in a soul. I reject the concept of a permanent "self" that I can identify with. All the mind states that I have change constantly, and don't reside anywhere. They come and go. My personality changes as I age. My body changes as I age. What can I point to and say "this is me?". The only thing that I could define as "Eor" is the stream of mind states/changes my body makes, a sort of empirical self, composed of constantly changing physical and mental phenomenon. Because I am always changing, there isn't a "self" I can latch on to.

Also, I'm not rejecting the usefulness of philosophy. All that I am objecting to is using philosophy over empirical evidence.

This is the difference between logic and truth. When spiritual phenomena occurs, because there is no scientific evidence for it, one is usually not well-founded in believing it, does this mean it didn't happen? No.

Also, there is pre-rational evidence of the soul.

My godmother had a dream where her late father spoke to her in a langauge she didn't know, she then later found out it meant 'your soul will always live on'.

I also know of unrelated people who have been to psychics who communicate with the dead. Now before you judge me to be a gullible fool, I'm not talking about John Edwars-type, cold reading frauds who pursue hot leeds based off what you say to them. I know of people (one of them is an atheist) who have had psychics communicate with their relatives without the a person saying a single word to the psychic at all.

Also, people have had out of body experiences, where they attain a visual perception from above their body, a position the eyes normally cannot so do from. I'm not claiming that means a soul exists, but there is some form of capacity for vsiual perception that does not protrude from the body.

Also, the 'homily effect' is phenomena that I personally have experienced, and so have many others. To claim these are false would be to claim that several perfectly normal people appear to dellusions only when in homilies and nowhere else.

Also, I know you won't believe it, but the bleeding eucharist apparently has been scientifically proven to be true-
http://www.indefenseofthecross.com/Eucharistic_miracles.htm

I only suggest these specific examples because these can not be dismissed as dellusions, because they all require external information that could not be known in a dellusion, or participation from an external influence which could not be controlled by the witness. I've heard of many others but they could very well just be dellusion.

I know what you're going to say, that because it's not documented in a book, or because an experiment can't prove this stuff, it's not true. That's wrong, it would mean that it is possibly not well-founded to believe in, it does not mean it isn't true.

 

[Eor]

See, I reject that spiritual phenomena are real (my definition not including someone getting guidance or comfort from religion, but supernatural things) until there is evidence for it. Assuming that a Psychic is real, then they could prove it. Easily. But not one has. Not a single one has put their "power" up to a scientific test. All that would be needed to prove it would be a single person who is psychic do his power to someone randomly selected who the psychic couldn't possible know about, then use his power to give information he'd be unable to attain through cold readings while being observed by an impartial observer who could document it. That is all that would be needed, but not once, ever, has it happened.

You are right, though, that this doesn't prove that it's 100% proven false. But unless there is any evidence for it, then there isn't any logical reason to believe in it. It makes more sense to believe that these people just experienced delusions then to believe that these powers exist, because none of them have any empirical evidence in favor of it. People have always had strange personal experiences. Many people have claimed to have been abducted by aliens, but there is no evidence for it. Many people have claimed to have God talk to them, or any other sort of power or supernatural thing, but none of them have evidence. So yes, I don't believe anyone should believe in that stuff unless there is direct evidence for it. I never said that they were 100% false, but I do believe they are all false, and until some sort of empirical evidence arises otherwise I'll continue to believe they are false. Just because someone can't disprove something is not enough evidence to say that it's true (I'm aware you didn't say that, by the way). Same as the Russel's teapot. Why should we be "agnostic" towards everything that can't be proven false? Critical thinking is way more effective. Obviously we can't say 100% that psychics don't exist unless we can prove it, but that isn't required to simply reject them as being true.

 

[Dre89]

See, I reject that spiritual phenomena are real (my definition not including someone getting guidance or comfort from religion, but supernatural things) until there is evidence for it. Assuming that a Psychic is real, then they could prove it. Easily. But not one has. Not a single one has put their "power" up to a scientific test. All that would be needed to prove it would be a single person who is psychic do his power to someone randomly selected who the psychic couldn't possible know about, then use his power to give information he'd be unable to attain through cold readings while being observed by an impartial observer who could document it. That is all that would be needed, but not once, ever, has it happened.

You are right, though, that this doesn't prove that it's 100% proven false. But unless there is any evidence for it, then there isn't any logical reason to believe in it. It makes more sense to believe that these people just experienced delusions then to believe that these powers exist, because none of them have any empirical evidence in favor of it. People have always had strange personal experiences. Many people have claimed to have been abducted by aliens, but there is no evidence for it. Many people have claimed to have God talk to them, or any other sort of power or supernatural thing, but none of them have evidence. So yes, I don't believe anyone should believe in that stuff unless there is direct evidence for it. I never said that they were 100% false, but I do believe they are all false, and until some sort of empirical evidence arises otherwise I'll continue to believe they are false. Just because someone can't disprove something is not enough evidence to say that it's true (I'm aware you didn't say that, by the way). Same as the Russel's teapot. Why should we be "agnostic" towards everything that can't be proven false? Critical thinking is way more effective. Obviously we can't say 100% that psychics don't exist unless we can prove it, but that isn't required to simply reject them as being true.

But none of those that I mentioned could be dellusions though as I epxlained in my previous post. They are either lies or they are true, dellusion is not a possibility.

My dad claims he saw Jesus when he was 13, but that image could have easily been formed from what his concept of Jesus was, so that could have easily been a dellusion. The phenomena I've mentioned required external influeces.

The problem is though, some things won't ever be proven by science though. Suppose an angel comes to you in a dream and speaks to you in chinese (assuming you don't know chinese), and you later find out it said that God is watching you.

Now because the 'angel' exhibited external information you could not have possibly already known (speaking chinese), it could not have been a dellusion. Now of couse, you have no other reason to believe it other than the fact it actually happened. This is pre-rational evidence. You wouldn't honestly believe it didn't happen because it hasn't been proven by science would you?

Also, what about the Bleeding Eucharist, what is your take on that? There is apparently sufficient scientific evidence for it.

 

[GoldShadow]

Let's try to keep this on topic. Religious debates can be taken to another thread.

Also, what about the Bleeding Eucharist, what is your take on that? There is apparently sufficient scientific evidence for it.

No there isn't.

 

[Dre89]

No there isn't.

Could you please elaborate? I'm indifferent on this issue and I'd like to be informed.

 

[Eor]

I honestly didn't look at what you linked, because I saw the site it was on and knew that it would be biased. If it was actually scientifically proven it would of been in a science journal. But I looked at it now.

The results on the left, though, are pretty much word for word copied from the results of the scientific test on the remains from the Miracle of Lanciano, which occurred around 700 A.D, and was scientifically tested in the 1970s. They concluded that what they had was real human blood and flesh. All that this would require is that the church used real human blood/flesh to preserve for the shrine they had for it.

For the recent one you linked, though, I couldn't find any third party evidence of it. The only places I could see that mentioned it where sites that were catholic.

If I saw an angel talk to me in Chinese (I'll change it to swahili because I actually took a course in mandarin ), and told me something, then I went and looked it up and found out that it was Swahili for "God loves you and wants you to believe in him", or something else, then no, I would not immediately assume that it was true. There are dozens of "memory biases" that we have, and it would be much more likely that I wouldn't of 100% remembered the phrase, and when looking for it, find something similar and because of the memory bias misremember the phrase spoken to me as being exactly what I found out. There would also be the fact that it's possible I heard that phrase some really long time ago, somehow, and subconsciously remembered it, or any other possible reasons that would make much more sense.

Now if an angel came down and did talk to me in my dream, then yeah science wouldn't be able to prove that. But then there's the logical problem. Why would an angel talk to only a few people? Why not just go to everyone? Can they only talk to people in dreams, or can they do other miracles? If they can, then why aren't they actually doing them? Pretty much, if God/a supernatural being can interact with this world, then why would be only do it in small ways that can easily be explained by science?

 

[Dre89]

If I saw an angel talk to me in Chinese (I'll change it to swahili because I actually took a course in mandarin ), and told me something, then I went and looked it up and found out that it was Swahili for "God loves you and wants you to believe in him", or something else, then no, I would not immediately assume that it was true. There are dozens of "memory biases" that we have, and it would be much more likely that I wouldn't of 100% remembered the phrase, and when looking for it, find something similar and because of the memory bias misremember the phrase spoken to me as being exactly what I found out. There would also be the fact that it's possible I heard that phrase some really long time ago, somehow, and subconsciously remembered it, or any other possible reasons that would make much more sense.

Now if an angel came down and did talk to me in my dream, then yeah science wouldn't be able to prove that. But then there's the logical problem. Why would an angel talk to only a few people? Why not just go to everyone? Can they only talk to people in dreams, or can they do other miracles? If they can, then why aren't they actually doing them? Pretty much, if God/a supernatural being can interact with this world, then why would be only do it in small ways that can easily be explained by science?

It's all well and good to question God's intentions, but the reality is you would know the angel existed. Suppose it was a langauge you had never been exposed to at all, and you remembered the words clearly, then what?

You appear to be so desperate to disprove that it is supernatural. You seem that you're willing to go to the point that it becomes more logical to believe in the supernatural than in the explanations you yould come up with.

 

[Eor]

It's all well and good to question God's intentions, but the reality is you would know the angel existed. Suppose it was a langauge you had never been exposed to at all, and you remembered the words clearly, then what?

I would know? How?

If you're saying that I'm supernaturally know, then that'd require me to assume that such a thing is possible. That'd be like saying "Well if Jesus came down and performed miracles in front of you, would you believe in him?" Obviously I would. How would I prove it? I couldn't. It'd be more likely for other people to assume that I'm insane then that I'm correct, because if I was correct then it would break almost every natural law we know.

You appear to be so desperate to disprove that it is supernatural. You seem that you're willing to go to the point that it becomes more logical to believe in the supernatural than in the explanations you yould come up with.

Except what I pointed out is based on empirical evidence and facts. The Supernatural isn't. It would be easier to assume that, instead of scientific reasons for why someone would have a dream and then later believe it was a language or something similar that it was God. But easier doesn't mean that it's true. Add Occam's razor to it. To assume they're true would require us to assume much more then that, and would also reject natural laws, like locality.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

That'd be like saying "Well if Jesus came down and performed miracles in front of you, would you believe in him?" Obviously I would. How would I prove it? I couldn't. It'd be more likely for other people to assume that I'm insane then that I'm correct, because if I was correct then it would break almost every natural law we know.

Also, you have to weigh up the probabilities. If the chance the source is wrong is greater than the chance of the event mentioned occurring then, it's more likely that the source is wrong than the even actually occurring.

Let's take rolling dice as an example. If Billy ran up to you and told you that he'd just rolled 5 sixes in a row, and you knew that he lies 10% of the time, would you trust Billy?

Firstly, what is the likelihood of me rolling 5 sixes in a row? It's 1/6^5. A very low number.

Then what is the likelihood of Billy lying? 10%. So, it's more likely that Billy is lying, than if he actually rolled 5 sixes in a row.

I believe we should apply similar logic here. If it's more likely that the source is wrong, than the event mentioned actually occurring, the source is probably wrong.

That's the problem with eyewitness evidence, people lie, hallucinate, get drunk, get confused etc. In general eyewitness accounts are terrible, that's why science for the most part disregards them. I don't really trust it that much either, especially if the subject matter is extremely improbable e.g. UFOs, Aliens etc.