Science and pantheism

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

@Dale

Yes, like I believe in gravity and that the earth is approximately spherical. (You don’t perchance believe that the earth is flat, do you?)

Oh! Boy. Not those old chestnuts. Again.

[beaglelady]

@eyeillustration

Just the fact that having many ‘scholars’ and ‘experts’ promoting and defending something does not necessarily make that thing true… which was my original point.

No, of course not. But scientists have evidence from scientific investigations in their favor, and not just a bunch of talk.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@eyeillustration

@Dale

You don’t perchance believe that the earth is flat, do you?)

Oh! Boy. Not those old chestnuts. Again.

Your insistence that the scientific establishment with “‘scholars’ and ‘experts’” in scare quotes is a huge conspiracy sure fits with flat eartherism!

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@eyeillustration

I read the link about ‘How to challenge a scientific theory’ although it still doesn’t add up to ‘evolution’ as being a fact. The fact remains -it’s still a theory i.e. a human postulate with it’s origins in naturalism.

I’m sorry, but the word “theory” in science does not mean “a human postulate with its origins in naturalism.” It means an explanation for some aspect of the natural world that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated using proven and reproducible methods and protocols.

This means that you do not challenge a scientific theory merely by pointing out that it is a theory or hand-waving about “naturalism.” To challenge a scientific theory, you must either:

1. provide evidence that contradicts its core fundamentals (not just the fine details), or
2. provide an alternative theory that explains the evidence in at least as much detail, with at least as much precision, and with at least as much predictive power.

Anything else is a red herring, and tells us nothing.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@eyeillustration

Which is strange because when I studied geology, alleged human evolution had nothing to do with it.

Humans have not been around for long in terms of geological time, but the ice ages and land bridges do tie in. As for oil exploration, foraminifera and other microfossils play a key role. Coal is principally derived from carboniferous forests. Iron oxidation and biomineralization are markers of life history on earth, as is chalk and limestone formations.

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

Yes- Oolitic limestone in particular. These are reasons I am not tied to a young earth hypothesis.

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

@jammycakes

This means that you do not challenge a scientific theory merely by pointing out that it is a theory or hand-waving about “naturalism.” To challenge a scientific theory, you must either:

1. provide evidence that contradicts its core fundamentals (not just the fine details), or
2. provide an alternative theory that explains the evidence in at least as much detail, with at least as much precision, and with at least as much predictive power.

Actually, this is where you are fundamentally wrong. I don’t ‘have to’. It’s not my job.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@eyeillustration

Actually, this is where you are fundamentally wrong. I don’t ‘have to’. It’s not my job.

And what, pray tell, is fundamentally wrong about it? Are you claiming that you can legitimately respond to evidence-based science with unsubstantiated assertions and vacuous non-sequiturs? Or are you saying that there is another form of challenge to scientific theories that I have somehow missed out? If so, what is it? And of course if it is “not your job” to challenge scientific theories, then why are you actually attempting to do so?

The fact of the matter is that if you are going to challenge a scientific theory, there are at least some rules that you need to follow and some standards that you need to maintain. If there weren’t, then you would legitimately be able to claim that the earth is flat because ase;lhvqwt4 o grhj agrljaevtniopw4evtniopwe4vt.

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

@jammycakes

The fact of the matter is that if you are going to challenge a scientific theory, there are at least some rules that you need to follow and some standards that you need to maintain.

Have you always been a controlling person? There seem to be one or two here. Scientistic bully-boys would be a good description. I don’t have to obey your rules. Who are you?

I’m not forcing anyone into my worldview like you are, or saying they have no intellectual integrity or saying they are a troll. A person’s own personal doubt isn’t good enough for some of you lot.

I am not telling anyone what they ‘need to do’ like you are doing or ‘you must believe what I believe’. I’m saying I don’t have to believe your theory of evolution as an explanation of origins even though you say I have to. I’m afraid here’s nothing you can do about that.

[beaglelady]

@eyeillustration

Have you always been a controlling person?

Evidently he’s always been a thinking person. The nerve of him.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@eyeillustration

Have you always been…

That seems to me to be a cop-out, sidestepping the issue.

[T_aquaticus]

@eyeillustration

I’m saying I don’t have to believe your theory of evolution as an explanation of origins even though you say I have to.

Nope, you don’t have to hold to a logical, rational, and evidenced position. You can hurl eggs at the knowledge we have gained over the centuries. You are certainly free to do so. However, if you hope to gain the respect of others you are doing a very poor job.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@eyeillustration

@jammycakes

The fact of the matter is that if you are going to challenge a scientific theory, there are at least some rules that you need to follow and some standards that you need to maintain.

Have you always been a controlling person? There seem to be one or two here. Scientistic bully-boys would be a good description. I don’t have to obey your rules. Who are you?

I’m not forcing anyone into my worldview like you are, or saying they have no intellectual integrity or saying they are a troll. A person’s own personal doubt isn’t good enough for some of you lot.

So let me get this straight.

I simply point out that you have to draw the line somewhere between what constitutes a coherent argument and what constitutes patent nonsense, even if that line is nothing more than speaking in grammatically coherent sentences rather than smashing randomly on your computer keyboard.

In response, you tell me that I am a “controlling person” and a “scientistic bully-boy” who is “forcing [people] into my worldview.”

I won’t comment on that. I shall simply let the nature of that argument speak for itself and leave others to draw their own conclusions as to whether or not it has any intellectual integrity and whether or not it is trolling. I would recommend everyone else to do the same.

[eyeillustration (Neil Stanton (UK))]

@jammycakes

I won’t comment on that. I shall simply let the nature of that argument speak for itself and leave others to draw their own conclusions as to whether or not it has any intellectual integrity and whether or not it is trolling. I would recommend everyone else to do the same.

Good. No one had to make it personal.

Let’s leave it there.