4 ms·

Possibly, or possibly he's finding reasons to rebuff evolution so that the only remaining answer is intelligent design. But neither of us know that, so that's w

Possibly, or possibly he's finding reasons to rebuff evolution so that the only remaining answer is intelligent design. But neither of us know that, so that's why I asked.

foldr 7y ago
Possibly you are finding reasons to smear anyone who disagrees with you as a creationist.
- philbarr 7y ago
  Where on earth did you get that? And you are clearly incorrect as he/she hasn't answered my question. Therefore I cannot be "smearing" him for a response he hasn't given. What ridiculous ad hominem. I asked a genuine question that hasn't been answered and you inferred far more from it than there really was.
  - foldr 7y ago
    I was paralleling your own baseless speculation about someone’s motives: “Possibly, or possibly he's finding reasons to rebuff evolution so that the only remaining answer is intelligent design.”
    - philbarr 7y ago
      Fair enough, but had he answered, "no", to, "do you think creationism is a valid theory" I would have been happy to accept his premise that he was only interested in scientific discovery. That's why I asked that specific question. To clarify my possibly incorrect assumption that he believes in creationism and is only saying what he is to further that agenda. That's why I asked. I could well be wrong about that. But he hasn't answered.
      - EGreg 7y ago
        HN rate limits people. So now I will tell you. When I mentioned the creationism, I mentioned it in the way foldr understood. But listen: I meant exactly what I said and that should be enough. I don’t have to be a communist to point out failures of markets. A person who believes the invisible hand always knows best should defend their position with logic instead of counterattacking others with adhominems. And that is actually a weaker example. I don’t have to even have a competing theory to point out that unfalsifiable theories abound in the area of evolution. I already said to you the common descent theory has AMPLE evidence. From genetic evidence, geology, fossil record, radiometric dating and so on. So clearly I have give you a standard that leaves the other evolutionary theories in the dust. Just because they can all be lumped under the umbrella term “evolution” doesn’t mean they are all one, proven theory!! Consider the multiverse theory. Is that falsifiable? Is it science? My point is that no thise things are not actually science. They are simply a preference to claim every result we observe was brought about by processes we already understand. The word “science” is just attached to it because it gives it a nice halo effect. Neither multiverse theories nor these theories are actually falsifiable in any practical way. The goal of promoting these theories is actually to have a legitimate-sounding (on the surface) way avoid admitting there may be supernatural causes involving phenomena that we don’t understand and may never understand. In quantum mechanics, fine tuning of constants, and many other areas, we have possibly reached a limit of what we can actually test or explain using classical reasoning. And we have begun to accept that maybe properly done science has limits. Beyond this lies faith, of many sorts. Religious faith, or faith in the principle that there are no skyhooks or that everything is made up of stuff we more of less already understand. You can say that makes me a creationist because once I say we don’t know HOW X CAME ABOUT there is no difference in explanations. But that’s not true. You can rule out explanations by falsification! For example you can rule out most Greek myths, because they involve falsifiable elements that have been shown to be false (eg apollo with the sun in a chariot going across the sky, or mount olympus being home to zeus). Most religions make falsifiable claims, and that’s how we can actually disprove them. But to the extent a natural theory consistts of UNFALSIFIBLE claims, we have to be honest about them being unfalsifiable, even if the only alternative is a supernatural explanation.
        philbarr 7y ago

Possibly, or possibly he's finding reasons to rebuff evolution so that the only remaining answer is intelligent design. But neither of us know that, so that's why I asked.

foldr 7y ago

Possibly you are finding reasons to smear anyone who disagrees with you as a creationist.

philbarr 7y ago
Where on earth did you get that? And you are clearly incorrect as he/she hasn't answered my question. Therefore I cannot be "smearing" him for a response he hasn't given. What ridiculous ad hominem. I asked a genuine question that hasn't been answered and you inferred far more from it than there really was.
- foldr 7y ago
  I was paralleling your own baseless speculation about someone’s motives: “Possibly, or possibly he's finding reasons to rebuff evolution so that the only remaining answer is intelligent design.”
  - philbarr 7y ago
    Fair enough, but had he answered, "no", to, "do you think creationism is a valid theory" I would have been happy to accept his premise that he was only interested in scientific discovery. That's why I asked that specific question. To clarify my possibly incorrect assumption that he believes in creationism and is only saying what he is to further that agenda. That's why I asked. I could well be wrong about that. But he hasn't answered.
    - EGreg 7y ago
      HN rate limits people. So now I will tell you. When I mentioned the creationism, I mentioned it in the way foldr understood. But listen: I meant exactly what I said and that should be enough. I don’t have to be a communist to point out failures of markets. A person who believes the invisible hand always knows best should defend their position with logic instead of counterattacking others with adhominems. And that is actually a weaker example. I don’t have to even have a competing theory to point out that unfalsifiable theories abound in the area of evolution. I already said to you the common descent theory has AMPLE evidence. From genetic evidence, geology, fossil record, radiometric dating and so on. So clearly I have give you a standard that leaves the other evolutionary theories in the dust. Just because they can all be lumped under the umbrella term “evolution” doesn’t mean they are all one, proven theory!! Consider the multiverse theory. Is that falsifiable? Is it science? My point is that no thise things are not actually science. They are simply a preference to claim every result we observe was brought about by processes we already understand. The word “science” is just attached to it because it gives it a nice halo effect. Neither multiverse theories nor these theories are actually falsifiable in any practical way. The goal of promoting these theories is actually to have a legitimate-sounding (on the surface) way avoid admitting there may be supernatural causes involving phenomena that we don’t understand and may never understand. In quantum mechanics, fine tuning of constants, and many other areas, we have possibly reached a limit of what we can actually test or explain using classical reasoning. And we have begun to accept that maybe properly done science has limits. Beyond this lies faith, of many sorts. Religious faith, or faith in the principle that there are no skyhooks or that everything is made up of stuff we more of less already understand. You can say that makes me a creationist because once I say we don’t know HOW X CAME ABOUT there is no difference in explanations. But that’s not true. You can rule out explanations by falsification! For example you can rule out most Greek myths, because they involve falsifiable elements that have been shown to be false (eg apollo with the sun in a chariot going across the sky, or mount olympus being home to zeus). Most religions make falsifiable claims, and that’s how we can actually disprove them. But to the extent a natural theory consistts of UNFALSIFIBLE claims, we have to be honest about them being unfalsifiable, even if the only alternative is a supernatural explanation.
      - philbarr 7y ago