I Believe We Were Created: Change My Mind

@newjaninev2 [quote]If you’re postulating a creator, then the flaws in the human body mean it must be the most incompetent (or sadistic) entity imaginable.[/quote]

I would hope that a scientific objective wouldn't be so myopic in its objectivity. Maybe the creator is incompetent and sadistic. Even more than you could imagine. You don't start out on any search of truth with such narrow parameters.

@AkioTsukino So your sole response to any argument is... it might be like that.

In that case, why are you ever postulating a creator? There’s certainly no compelling necessity to do so. We can simply discard the entire postulation, we will have lost nothing, and we can all go off and play tennis for the afternoon

@newjaninev2 [quote]So your sole response to any argument is... it might be like that.[/quote]

Please. Some of you are intelligent people.

[quote]In that case, why are you ever postulating a creator?[/quote]

In this thread I'm not. Well, I'm trying not to. It's a distraction. Ockham's Razor. In this thread.

@AkioTsukino I’m sorry, I can’t make out what you’re trying to say. Could you please rephrase it?

@newjaninev2 In this thread I'm not interested in theological apologetics. This thread is about the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution. At this point I'm trying to get your perspective on the basics. A prologue to evolution. The scientific methodology. A simple search can tell me that the scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. The basic process involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results.

This isn't a complicated procedure. As an infant I would have employed a similar method for trying to figure anything out.

The sorts of questions I would observe in proponents of evolution who have been indoctrinated with it is first of all can they think for themselves and are they biased. Then I would examine the methodology. For example, when taking on a similar task examining theology and theists I would undoubtedly come to the conclusion that the proponents have been indoctrinated, are biased, and mislead by tradition for cultural, social and political reasons.

Then I would have to examine the history of the tradition to see if there was anything of value underneath. Linguistics, that sort of thing.

I'm going to be very simply looking at the fallibility of the scientific method and its proponents.

@AkioTsukino You need the evidence that is explained by the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, is that what you’re saying? I have supplied you with a small amount of that, and I have invited you to think for yourself. Have you found a better explanation for that evidence?

Please share

@AkioTsukino I said earlier that I can’t make out what you’re trying to say. I’m beginning to think it might be more instructive to focus on what you’re trying [i]not[/i] to say

@newjaninev2 Okay. Focus on that so long as it would be relevant to me in this context.

@newjaninev2 [quote]You need the evidence that is explained by the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, is that what you’re saying? I have supplied you with a small amount of that, and I have invited you to think for yourself. Have you found a better explanation for that evidence?[/quote]

I want you to tell me what the flaws to the scientific methodology are. How has it gone wrong, with examples. What are possible pitfalls.

@AkioTsukino Why would I do that? What possible reason would I have for doing your thinking for you? What would be the point?

Are you referring to the methodology, or to the way it has been applied throughout history? If the latter, then there are numerous examples, but bear in mind that the methodology is self-correcting, and such errors or deceits are soon discovered.

@AkioTsukino [quote]I'm going to be very simply looking at the fallibility of the scientific method and its proponents.[/quote]
The proponents are frequently fallible, no one claims otherwise. But the method? It is so simple that if it has any faults they are surely discoverable by inspection, induction, and all the other tools of philosophical enquiry that we have inherited from our ancient forefathers and refined ever since.

So it seems that you request for an explanation of scientific method was made in bad faith because you have already decided to reject it out of hand rather than argue against it.
Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are trying to do. If so please explain.

@newjaninev2 [quote]but bear in mind that the methodology is self-correcting, and such errors or deceits are soon discovered.[/quote]

Soon? Like 40-50 years?

@AkioTsukino In the great scheme of things 50 years is but the blink of an eye. It took the Catholic church four hundred years to apologize for their treatment of Galileo.

@ninalanyon [quote]The proponents are frequently fallible, no one claims otherwise.[/quote]

I've noticed no one claims that. I've also notice it is almost exclusively implied even while dodging the claim. The recent plandemic is a stunning example, and at least in the USA they have been manufacturing and manipulating fake pandemics for over 100 years.

[quote]So it seems that you request for an explanation of scientific method was made in bad faith because you have already decided to reject it out of hand rather than argue against it.[/quote]

Perhaps. I did the same with the Bible 29 years ago and became a believer. I have to follow the truth no matter what it is. My main objective is the truth.

[quote]Perhaps I have misunderstood what you are trying to do. If so please explain.[/quote]

I'm looking for feedback on the subject of creationism vs evolutionism by allowing the science minded atheist to engage in discourse other than my own primary interest which is theological. I have virtually no interest in science other than to learn what people with opposing viewpoints than my own have to say. What they think and why.

To me fairness is very important. It isn't fair for me to give and not take. To only discuss what is important to me.

@AkioTsukino So your mind is made up? Then what value lies in discussion?

@AkioTsukino [quote] The only reason I can see is a conflict in world views, which is . . . irrelevant.[/quote]
It might be irrelevant to someone not of this world. But it is very relevant to those who inhabit it. Religious thought causes worldly action and on occasion that conflicts with the ethical opinions of those who are not believers. If thought never resulted in action there would be no conflict, but also no point in thought.

@ninalanyon [quote]It might be irrelevant to someone not of this world. But it is very relevant to those who inhabit it. Religious thought causes worldly action and on occasion that conflicts with the ethical opinions of those who are not believers. If thought never resulted in action there would be no conflict, but also no point in thought.[/quote]

What do you mean, exactly? It brings up an interesting point. Most scientist throughout our long history have been theistic. Science and education, at least as we know it in the occidental sphere, were created by theists. Darwin and Dawkins were theists. Many scientists reject the theory, and if science encourages debate that shouldn't be a problem.

Sometimes . . . very often, in fact . . . the subject is presented as if even questioning the theory will be very detrimental. Publishing. Grants. Tenure.

@AkioTsukino
[quote]What do you mean, exactly? [/quote]
I mean that opinions matter. Opinions, whether religious or not, cause people to act. Sometimes those actions are to the detriment of others. Frequently those of a religious, or nationalistic, bent define the other as lesser; then we have conflict and harm
[quote]Most scientist throughout our long history have been theistic.[/quote]
Scientists are people, most people have been theistic, therefore it is probable that scientists have been theistic.
That does not mean that theism is scientific or that those scientists were religious in the commonly accepted sense.

[quote]Science and education, at least as we know it in the occidental sphere, were created by theists.[/quote]
See my point about theistic scientists

[/quote] Darwin and Dawkins were theists.[/quote]
Darwin was pretty quiet about his religion or lack of. It is commonly accepted as far as I know that he avoided the subject out of respect for his wife who was devout.

As for Dawkins being a theist; have you ever read any of his books? Or did you mean to imply that he was but is no longer?

Here is a quote from an interview
[quote]Yes. I didn't actually read Darwin himself. I mean I didn't read Darwin himself until rather later. But I read Darwinism, and understood Darwinism at 16. And that was a big leap for me, because by the time I reached the age of 16, I had lost all religious faith, with the exception of possibly a sort of lingering feeling about the argument from design. So I'd already sort of worked out that there are lots of different religions, and they contradict each other, so they can't all be right - and that kind of thing. But I was left with a sort of feeling 'Oh well there must be SOME sort of designer, some sort of spirit which, which designed the universe and designed life.' And it was when I understood Darwin that I saw how totally wrong that point of view was, that rather suddenly scales fell from my eyes and I then became rather strongly anti-religious at that point.[/quote]
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/people/dawkins.shtml

@AkioTsukino [quote]Like 40-50 years?[/quote]

Sometimes it takes 2,000 years for nonsense to be revealed as nonsense 😂

@AkioTsukino [quote]the subject of creationism vs evolutionism[/quote]

There is no such subject, there is no ‘debate’, and claims that there is a debate are merely creationism trying to make itself relevant or even meaningful.

[b]It is neither[/b]

Science doesn’t give a dam about creationism... or any other supernatural, magic-based, claims.

@AkioTsukino [quote]That's why we have science?[/quote]

I think you’re conflating science and technology

@newjaninev2 [quote]I think you’re conflating science and technology[/quote]

Technology is the application of scientific knowledge for various purposes.