Creationism: Why not call a spade a spade?

[SirGalahad]

@tomndebb

So? Bricker did not offer it as “Truth.” He posted a factual corrective to a somewhat inaccurate description of the RCC’s position.

But my question was “Did you have a point?” It now appears that your “point” was simply to take a personal shot at a position that was not even being offered in the thread.

To the extent that I am questioning the purpose of making snide comments about positions that are not even being offered in the thread, I am defending Bricker and anyone else who chooses to post corrective facts on the Straight Dope.

I am noting that you post was irrelevant, since no one was posting that magic was required to make evolution work.

Then you did a poor job of making that point.

I have made no accusation of jerkishness, but now that you have brought it up: I find it tedious to have posters throw snide comments into discussions attacking positions that have not been offered. When such posts are done snidely, they are liable to derail the thread with personal attacks.

Had Bricker offered the Church’s position as “Truth,” I would have ignored your post. Since you chose to use a factual observation regarding statements, (as opposed to an assertion of truth), as an excuse to insert a mini-rant into the thread, it caught my attention.

I can see you’re still not getting that my comment was directed at the Church’s position, not at Bricker. Since that’s going to be a problem for you, I give up … there’s no way to approach this if that one element escapes you.

[simster]

@Bricker

Yes. And an infinite number of monkeys would like to talk to you about this screenplay they’re worked out.

well, my point here was that we have no evidence that it is ‘entirely random’ - it certainly appears so, and by the nature of what we have observed to date - would certainly seem so - but we are missing a HUGE subset of data overall - billions of years of it.

So, to state that it is ‘entirely’ random is a bit of a stretch.

So - as a premise (unfalsifiable) that a ‘god’ created the laws/rules that led to evelution happening the way it did with the foreknowledge that it would work out like it has - would make the randomness somehow ‘planned and orderly’ from it’s aspect but entirely random from our limited viewpoint.

At which point, we’re back to square one - evidence for such a being to have done such a thing.

I’m reminded of a quote from Futurama -

[QUOTE=God]
When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.
[/QUOTE]

and they you passed the bong in #175 and I think you were agreeing with that overall.

[Boyo_Jim]

@Bricker

…But suppose for the moment we were hyper-aware: we knew in what position we were holding the dice, with what initial velocity we were throwing them, the coefficient of friction of the felt on the table, the elasticity of the table and wall, the viscosity of the air, the influence of the sound waves from the karaoke singer. If we knew all those to eighty decimal places, couldn’t we reliably predict precisely what two faces of the die would end up facing up?

So I’d further advance the opinion that true randomness doesn’t exist. But randomness for our purposes exists, because randomness in which we cannot distinguish or measure the events necessary to predict the result is effectively randomness, from our relative perspective.

It’s arguable that randomness might be eliminated to the extent that all the varialbles in a given scenario can be known or eliminated. It’s even arguable that the maximal eliimation of randomness is the very reason science is such a powerful tool – good science is an extremely usefule predictor of outcomes once random factors have been controlled for or removed.

I suppose I have to ask you what “true” randomness means. But surely you can’t mean that randomness isn’t really random.

If you do, can I try what’s in your bong?

[Bricker]

@simster

well, my point here was that we have no evidence that it is ‘entirely random’ - it certainly appears so, and by the nature of what we have observed to date - would certainly seem so - but we are missing a HUGE subset of data overall - billions of years of it.

So, to state that it is ‘entirely’ random is a bit of a stretch.

So - as a premise (unfalsifiable) that a ‘god’ created the laws/rules that led to evelution happening the way it did with the foreknowledge that it would work out like it has - would make the randomness somehow ‘planned and orderly’ from it’s aspect but entirely random from our limited viewpoint.

At which point, we’re back to square one - evidence for such a being to have done such a thing.

Correct. There’s no particular evidence evidence I can offer for it.

But that’s a completely separate statement than the one I started with: that such a belief is not inconsistent with evolution.

(As opposed to the denial, for example, that one species can evolve into another, a belief which is inconsistent with evolution.)

[Bricker]

@Boyo_Jim

I suppose I have to ask you what “true” randomness means. But surely you can’t mean that randomness isn’t really random.

If you do, can I try what’s in your bong?

Sure I can mean that.

How do you propose to generate randomness? This is a vexing problem for many folks, particularly those in the encryption field. How random is your proposed randomness algorithm?

[Bricker]

@kaylasdad99

That you can (and in fact, often tend to) respond with such equanimity is among the reasons I have so much affection for you as a Doper.

Remember that bong I mentioned?

(I kid, I kid.)

[Bricker]

@Czarcasm

1. Did you just slip in a reference to The Questor Tapes?

Yup. The London casino scene.

Showing our age.

[Bricker]

@SirGalahad

My kind of night …

I sincerely hope you didn’t take offense at my Santa/ God analogy … nothing about it was directed at you, your post just happened to be the one referring to the Catholic Church’s position. No offense intended by any stretch.

No problem. Truth told, it did kinda feel like an attack, but it was also a true statement, just phrased with a touch of snark. No harm, no foul.

[simster]

@Bricker

Yup. The London casino scene.

Showing our age.

I have a copy of that book - remember watching that many many many years ago - need to see if a dvd/etc is available these days.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

All this misguided verbiage on pseudorandomness is just a distraction.

Positing that there is a systemic process that we cannot see and cannot detect is no different than positing that there is a god that we can neither see nor detect.

A little non randomness, in the case of this discussion, is meaningless.

[tomndebb]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I disagree. Contending, as some creationists do, that God created everything and made everything so that it would evolve is arguing that magic is/was required to make evolution work.

And who posted that as a serious point in this thread?

@SirGalahad

I can see you’re still not getting that my comment was directed at the Church’s position, not at Bricker. Since that’s going to be a problem for you, I give up … there’s no way to approach this if that one element escapes you.

Your claim does not escape me. However, as I have noted–and you continue to ignore–the claim was not posted as a part of any argument by any poster in this thread. You are attacking a position that was only mentioned as a factual corrective to another post and not offered as a point to be debated.
Now, if you are through with this hijack, everyone can go back to trying to get Intrinsicvalue to understand the language being used in the thread or to make clear what he is trying to argue.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@tomndebb

And who posted that as a serious point in this thread?

The point was made that it is one possible form of creationism, that’s all. Isn’t this thread about debunking creationism?

BTW, I’ll happily drop this discussion about the propriety (or impropriety) of SirGalahad’s post. I was just chiming in to indicate that not everyone thought his comment was off-topic or unwarranted.

[Intrinsicvalue]

@tomndebb

Really? Where do you get that idea that you are ascribing to “naturalism”? There are a number of examples of altruism in the natural world. This seems to be nothing but a definition with which you are comfortable that is not based on anything any serious “naturalist” would proclaim.

Again, that is your opinion. Where is your evidence to support this belief if it is not actually present in all societies throughout the world?

= = =

You seem to have a tendency to throw out your personal beliefs as though they had substance beyond your own mind. I suspect that this is why you are coming across as utterly unpersuasive in your posts.

I know what Naturalism is. If something is evident in the world that cannot be explained by naturalism, then it is worthy of further investigation. Indeed is suggestive of naturalism being wanting. I have put out the challenge about objective morality, but from what I can see there is more evasion in the responses than in a general election.

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Czarcasm

Considering the fact that only a tiny minority of “leading scientists”(however you wish to define that nebulous term) are Creationists I have this to say: I’m sorry but I have no idea who you are to determine that the vast majority of the leading scientists on the planet are ignorant.

I haven’t asserted that. My point was that there are many scientists who hold to the God hypothesis, and I have provided substantive evidence to verify that.

[simster]

@Intrinsicvalue

I know what Naturalism is. If something is evident in the world that cannot be explained by naturalism, then it is worthy of further investigation. Indeed is suggestive of naturalism being wanting. I have put out the challenge about objective morality, but from what I can see there is more evasion in the responses than in a general election.

Post 156 is a direct response to your ‘challenge’… or did you miss it?

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I’m not going to invest hours of my time in researching your arguments. They are your arguments; you need to back them up.

If the evidence that will back them up is available in “most” of these videos, you should be able to provide evidence without much trouble.

Again, the fact that you are not is seemingly indicative of an inabillity to back up your assertion.

And I have. If you deem it important enough to be here positing your opinion, surely you can take some time to explore a counter-argument?

[Intrinsicvalue]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

tomndebb and others have already given you some helpful corrective feedback on this assertion, but I have a little to add too.

If your position is that torturing children is universally morally prohibited, you’re not starting your argument off very well at all.

If there is some external force that makes the torture of children morally unacceptable, why has the acceptability of the torture of children varied over time and over contexts?

It wasn’t until the 17th century and the emergence of social conscience that our beliefs about children included the idea that they were emotionally sensitive beings who should be afforded individual rights. John Locke helped to usher in a transition from treating children with indifference or harshly.

The fact that we see historical transitions regarding the morality of how children are treated argues for such morality arising from humans rather than being imposed supernaturally.

Additionally, if your point includes the idea that our religions are a conduit for recognizing and interpreting moral prescriptions, then the story of God wiping out Job’s kids or, more intimately, telling Abraham to kill his son, argue against any biblical support for your objective morality regarding the treatment of children.

The torture of children during the inquisition, and even the stereotypical beating of Catholic school children with rulers and other implements also question any sort of religious source for a moral prohibition against the torture of children.

You may have thought you had come up with an example that demonstrated a morality we would all agree with, and it is hard for us, here and now, living in the culture that we do, to contend otherwise. But it isn’t a good example of an unchanging or universal morality.

Care to try again?

First of all, your entire post began with a false assertion. I did not suggest that the torture of children is universally morally prohibited. I suggested that it is objectively morally wrong. What is wrong is not necessarily prohibited. But actually even that is not the point. My challenge was for anyone to explain how, in a naturalistic world, you can support the contention that torturing a child is wrong.

[iiandyiiii]

@Intrinsicvalue

I know what Naturalism is. If something is evident in the world that cannot be explained by naturalism, then it is worthy of further investigation. Indeed is suggestive of naturalism being wanting. I have put out the challenge about objective morality, but from what I can see there is more evasion in the responses than in a general election.

Fine- there’s no objective morality… morality is a human concept, and any moral system requires certain assumptions.

And even if something is found that has not yet been explained naturalistically, that does not mean that there is a supernatural explanation. There’s many mysteries out there, but fewer each day.

[iiandyiiii]

@Intrinsicvalue

My challenge was for anyone to explain how, in a naturalistic world, you can support the contention that torturing a child is wrong.

Because it causes suffering, and we (you and me, or other humans) believe causing suffering is wrong, except in certain circumstances (medical procedures, self-defense, etc). We may come to that conclusion differently, but we both believe it is wrong.

Even a God-defined morality is not “objective”- if something is wrong just because God says so, then torturing a child could be right or wrong depending on God’s whims. And if torturing a child is wrong no matter what God says, then God is irrelevant to morality.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

@Intrinsicvalue

And I have. If you deem it important enough to be here positing your opinion, surely you can take some time to explore a counter-argument?

No, you have not backed up your assertion, not with a cite that can be seen or read. You’ve done the equivalent of citing a book, then telling me to go to the library or bookstore to find a copy in order to read it until I come upon the paragraph that supports your assertion.

That’s a failure on your part, not on mine.

As it stands, the research I’ve done does not support your assertion.

Every time you decline to back up what you say, you lose credibility and your assertion falls more into the “not true” category. Refusing to support your own arguments isn’t likely to sway anyone into agreeing with your position(s).

ETA: I’m not positing my opinion, I’m just pointing out that your assertion isn’t supported by any facts AFAICT.