The Evolution Big Lie; Evolution Proves Metapysical Nauralism

[JimBowie1958]

I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

 

[ScienceRocks]

So what you're saying is there's a big powerful man doing it all?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There is no credible evidence that one mammal species has ever evolved into 2 or more distinctly different species.

 

[Old Rocks]

In the fossil record, a whole world full of evidence. But you would deny it all, so why show you any of it. The willfully ignorant cannot be disabused of their ignorance.

 

[Mr. H.]

More ham is always better than good.

"Natural processes" can't occur without the presence of matter.

Could it be that approximately 14 billion years ago a singular "supernatural process" occurred that begat the existence of matter - the physical universe?

I think so.

And I think that since that immeasurable moment of time, all of that newly-created matter.....

evolved. Through natural processes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

So what you're saying is there's a big powerful man doing it all?

lol, no, I am not

Maybe you should read again but this time without your preconceptions?

 

[JimBowie1958]

In the fossil record, a whole world full of evidence. But you would deny it all, so why show you any of it. The willfully ignorant cannot be disabused of their ignorance.

I don't think that these 'Creationists' would be so quick to deny it if it was NOT also packaging metaphysical naturalism along with it.

 

[Mr. H.]

Time can not be measured without the presence of physical matter, however minute.

Even in stasis, the most minute particle of matter measures time.

Because it occupies... space.

And space itself can not exist without the presence of the most minute particle of.... matter.

And so - either matter has existed for all eternity, or there was an event-moment that (to the best of our current knowledge) occurred about 14 billion years ago.

I believe that "event-moment" to be the collision of pure nothingness with pure non-nothingness.

The result? Matter. Matter on the most minute of scale. But lots of it. Contained in an infinitesimal point of newly-created space. And time.

And THAT was the beginning of time. And the beginning of "natural process".

And from that immeasurable moment forward, the evolution of natural process... progressed.

Which begat shopping malls, Justin Bieber, and latex.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

You are guilty of begging the question and circular logic.

Stop.

Go back and look at your premises.

Then study the logic and the evidence for it.

Then make your conclusion.

The stop stammering and explain it logically.

 

[Mr. H.]

I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

You are guilty of begging the question and circular logic.

Stop.

Go back and look at your premises.

Then study the logic and the evidence for it.

Then make your conclusion.

The stop stammering and explain it logically.

And how can you request that of him without requesting anything of me?

You're the one skirting.

 

[Moonglow]

When they wrote the Bible, God forgot to mention dinosaurs....

 

[JimBowie1958]

When they wrote the Bible, God forgot to mention dinosaurs....

Lol, or plate tectonics, roflmao.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In the fossil record, a whole world full of evidence. But you would deny it all, so why show you any of it. The willfully ignorant cannot be disabused of their ignorance.

The fossil record does not provide a single link between one species and two or more distinctly different species that supposedly sprang from the one.

It does prove that WITHIN a species evolution occurs.

Hell we have had science for how many hundreds of years now? Why no physical evidence of a mammal species evolving into two or more distinct different species?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I totally agree with the theory of evolution, macro and micro, and though I used to oppose it quite vociferously, that all changed when I realized that evolution only required methodological naturalism, the idea that science can only look at natural processes and cannot consider supernatural processes. It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

This is where Protestant OEC ad YEC cause more ham than good because they deflect attention away from this subtle subterfuge and put t on their pet idea that were lost a long time ago.

You are guilty of begging the question and circular logic.

Stop.

I cannot be begging the question as I am not responding to someone else's question, though you seem to think I am. And there is no circular logic, though you are making unsupported/unwarranted assertions. Prove where I am making a circular argument, Einstein.

Go back and look at your premises.

Then study the logic and the evidence for it.

Then make your conclusion.

The stop stammering and explain it logically.

Lol, as if you would know what any of that is when you haven't demonstrated knowledge of the simplest logic yourself, n or have you provided any evidence of anything.

 

[orogenicman]

It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

Metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions. I fail to see how it qualifies as something that is evil and subversive. It seems to me that you are having an emotional response and haven't thought this out thoroughly. I don't believe in the supernatural, and many of my family and friends will tell you that I am certainly not an evil or subversive guy. I try to be kind and considerate of others (maybe the fact that I drive the speed limit irritates others, but could hardly qualify as evil or subversive behavior), I volunteer time to public outreach as a board member of one of the best amateur astronomy groups in the country (According to Astronomy Magazine), and though I am rather poor and in poor health, I would give the shirt off my back to a friend in need. So does any of this sound subversive and evil to you? I think you owe us a better explanation for your reaction than "it is evil and subversive", or "it is a lie". How is it a lie? Why can it not be proven? An even more important question, from my perspective is how can the supernatural be proven?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yanno..............people should really watch "Cosmos" on FOX, as hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

It would explain a lot of what is being argued here, only thing is, they back it up with science and pretty good theories.

Did we come from a common ancestor? Well, there are theories backed up by science and DNA sampling that say we did (check out the Nat Geo "Human Family Tree" sometime), and they all say we came from a common male and a common female.

Hmm................sounds like the Bible said, eh? The start of the human race was from Adam and Eve.

Face it......................there are things in the Bible, and things in science that say we all came from a common place.

Why can't science and the Bible agree on occasion, especially when they say pretty much the same thing?

 

[JimBowie1958]

It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

Metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions. I fail to see how it qualifies as something that is evil and subversive.

From a Christian catholic perspective, it is evil and subversive of moral standards.

It seems to me that you are having an emotional response and haven't thought this out thoroughly. I don't believe in the supernatural, and many of my family and friends will tell you that I am certainly not an evil or subversive guy.

I would agree you are not evil, but I would say that you cause more heat than light, more confusion and less clarity. You have displayed no concern with maintaining integrity, honest discussion nor moral compass of any kind that I have seen. You will fabricate, ignore and denounce whatever you like whenever you like with not intellectual or principles of restraint of any sort I can deduce.

That isn't evil, certainly, just maniacal frumpery.

I try to be kind and considerate of others (maybe the fact that I drive the speed limit irritates others, but could hardly qualify as evil or subversive behavior), I volunteer time to public outreach as a board member of one of the best amateur astronomy groups in the country (According to Astronomy Magazine), and though I am rather poor and in poor health, I would give the shirt off my back to a friend in need. So does any of this sound subversive and evil to you?

I assert that the philosophical school of thought known as metaphysical naturalism is harmful to science, subversive of morality and opposed to good, which makes it evil.

That no more means that every adherent is evil no more than asserting that Communism is bad economics makes every communist a poor economist, though the odds might suggest it.

I think you owe us a better explanation for your reaction than "it is evil and subversive", or "it is a lie". How is it a lie?

When metaphysical naturalism is presented as part of the theory of evolution or necessary effect from it, that is a lie. That there is nothing outside of our natural universe is already disproven and has been disproven many times. They simply keep expanding what their scope of what is natural contains.

At one time things imperceptible to the human senses was not a natural object, then they expanded that when we discovered that some forms of light are imperceptible by unaided natural means. They once asserted that the idea of the universe being created from nothing in a split second was impossible and outside the scope of naturalism, but then the Big Bang was proven and they had to expand the scope of what they would admit once again.

Why can it not be proven?

It is impossible for any system to prove the axioms on which it is based.

An even more important question, from my perspective is how can the supernatural be proven?

The supernatural cannot be proven with the degree of certitude that science offers, nor can it be proven via scientific method. Were a supernatural idea ever proven by science it would instantly stop being supernatural in any meaningful way, just like the Big Bang theory.

But the supernatural can be witnessed, as I myself have personally witnessed such things.

The supernatural can be proven via records, video and situational and circumstantial evidence, for which a metaphysical naturalist would deny no matter what was presented since it violates the starting axioms.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yanno..............people should really watch "Cosmos" on FOX, as hosted by Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

It would explain a lot of what is being argued here, only thing is, they back it up with science and pretty good theories.

Did we come from a common ancestor? Well, there are theories backed up by science and DNA sampling that say we did (check out the Nat Geo "Human Family Tree" sometime), and they all say we came from a common male and a common female.

Hmm................sounds like the Bible said, eh? The start of the human race was from Adam and Eve.

Face it......................there are things in the Bible, and things in science that say we all came from a common place.

Why can't science and the Bible agree on occasion, especially when they say pretty much the same thing?

They do agree at many points, and contradict each other at none.

The problem is that too many YECers and atheist propagandists like Dawkins make way too much money to have a reasonable discussion, as that doesn't sell books.

So each side will only debate the most extreme opposition they can find to kick up more dust and get more attention and sell more media.

Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of theistic evolutionists just do their jobs and leave the drama for the momas.

 

[orogenicman]

It wasn't science or the theory of Evolution I had my disagreements with, but it was this idea that EVERYTHING is a natural process, and those things that are not natural processes are mere fiction and this idea is called 'metaphysical naturalism'.

Metaphysical naturalism is a lie. It cannot be proven and it cannot support anything that is good in our society. Is an evil and subversive idea.

The problem is not with evolution but with the liars who try to slip in metaphysical naturalism when they talk about evolution.

Metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions. I fail to see how it qualifies as something that is evil and subversive.

From a Christian catholic perspective, it is evil and subversive of moral standards.

While that may seem true from a Catholic/Christian perspective, I suspect that many non-Christians and non-theists would disagree. Moreover, I also suspect that Christians hardly have a monopoly on morality.

I would agree you are not evil, but I would say that you cause more heat than light, more confusion and less clarity. You have displayed no concern with maintaining integrity, honest discussion nor moral compass of any kind that I have seen. You will fabricate, ignore and denounce whatever you like whenever you like with not intellectual or principles of restraint of any sort I can deduce.

Is that a fact? What have I fabricate/ignored. I will admit that I denounce willful ignorance. Who wouldn't? And why should I show restraint at such willful ignorance? Why should anyone?

I assert that the philosophical school of thought known as metaphysical naturalism is harmful to science, subversive of morality and opposed to good, which makes it evil.

Since science is, by definition, the study of natural phenomenon, how can you possibly come to the conclusion that naturalism is harmful to science? Even Galileo, by everyone's admission, a very religious man, recommended that in conducting scientific research, one must set aside scripture. How is a recognition of the natural world subversive or morality, and who's definition of morality is it subverting? You are not making any sense here. Science itself is morally neutral. Morality is the realm of fallible humans, not of the scientific method.

When metaphysical naturalism is presented as part of the theory of evolution or necessary effect from it, that is a lie. That there is nothing outside of our natural universe is already disproven and has been disproven many times. They simply keep expanding what their scope of what is natural contains.

??? Evolution makes no mention of what could possibly reside outside of our known universe. In fact, it says nothing about what could reside off-world of our own planet, though the universality of the laws of nature make it probable that other planets have similar life.

At one time things imperceptible to the human senses was not a natural object, then they expanded that when we discovered that some forms of light are imperceptible by unaided natural means. They once asserted that the idea of the universe being created from nothing in a split second was impossible and outside the scope of naturalism, but then the Big Bang was proven and they had to expand the scope of what they would admit once again.

Did you have a point to make here?

Why can it not be proven?

It is impossible for any system to prove the axioms on which it is based.

Except that science is not based on axiomatic reasoning.

An even more important question, from my perspective is how can the supernatural be proven?

The supernatural cannot be proven with the degree of certitude that science offers, nor can it be proven via scientific method. Were a supernatural idea ever proven by science it would instantly stop being supernatural in any meaningful way, just like the Big Bang theory.

And that's a problem because?

But the supernatural can be witnessed, as I myself have personally witnessed such things.

And that's a problem because human witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

The supernatural can be proven via records, video and situational and circumstantial evidence, for which a metaphysical naturalist would deny no matter what was presented since it violates the starting axioms.

Please provide us with at least one unambiguous instance where supernatural phenomenon was verified by the scientific method.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Metaphysical naturalism rejects the supernatural concepts and explanations that are part of many religions. I fail to see how it qualifies as something that is evil and subversive.

From a Christian catholic perspective, it is evil and subversive of moral standards.

While that may seem true from a Catholic/Christian perspective, I suspect that many non-Christians and non-theists would disagree. Moreover, I also suspect that Christians hardly have a monopoly on morality.

True, a few would disagree but those who subscribe to the majority of the 'great' religions would agree; Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism.

I would agree you are not evil, but I would say that you cause more heat than light, more confusion and less clarity. You have displayed no concern with maintaining integrity, honest discussion nor moral compass of any kind that I have seen. You will fabricate, ignore and denounce whatever you like whenever you like with not intellectual or principles of restraint of any sort I can deduce.

Is that a fact? What have I fabricate/ignored. I will admit that I denounce willful ignorance. Who wouldn't? And why should I show restraint at such willful ignorance? Why should anyone?

Just read what you posted here, deliberately ignoring the point about metaphysical naturalism and responding as though you were some dull freshman, lol.

I assert that the philosophical school of thought known as metaphysical naturalism is harmful to science, subversive of morality and opposed to good, which makes it evil.

Since science is, by definition, the study of natural phenomenon, how can you possibly come to the conclusion that naturalism is harmful to science? Even Galileo, by everyone's admission, a very religious man, recommended that in conducting scientific research, one must set aside scripture. How is a recognition of the natural world subversive or morality, and who's definition of morality is it subverting? You are not making any sense here. Science itself is morally neutral. Morality is the realm of fallible humans, not of the scientific method.

Metaphysical naturalism asserts more than science can prove. MetNat says NOTHING exists outside of nature while science says no such thing as those things are outside the scope of science.

MetNAt says there is no objective morality, that Truth is only a perceived quality of a concept, nothing more. It undermines the axioms of science that there is an objective Truth about everything, pretty much.

When metaphysical naturalism is presented as part of the theory of evolution or necessary effect from it, that is a lie. That there is nothing outside of our natural universe is already disproven and has been disproven many times. They simply keep expanding what their scope of what is natural contains.

??? Evolution makes no mention of what could possibly reside outside of our known universe. In fact, it says nothing about what could reside off-world of our own planet, though the universality of the laws of nature make it probable that other planets have similar life.

Lol, you intentionally distorted what I said, an example of your lies you toss out when it suits you. I guess you get too lazy to respond, or soemthing.

I said MetNat says there is nothing outside our natural universe, not evolution. Come on, you are not that stupid.

At one time things imperceptible to the human senses was not a natural object, then they expanded that when we discovered that some forms of light are imperceptible by unaided natural means. They once asserted that the idea of the universe being created from nothing in a split second was impossible and outside the scope of naturalism, but then the Big Bang was proven and they had to expand the scope of what they would admit once again.

Did you have a point to make here?

Yes, well read it again and maybe you will spot it.

It is impossible for any system to prove the axioms on which it is based.

Except that science is not based on axiomatic reasoning.

Yes, it is.

BillHoyt once wrote:
The axioms of science are these:
1. There is a real, external universe
2. This universe is rational; A is not equal to not-A.
3. Their are regularities in this universe.
4. The components and processes of this universe can be described by mathematics.
5. The components and processes of this universe can be isolated and profitably analyzed in isolation.

More:
Basic assumptions of science

Every field of knowlege operates on various axioms specific to it.

The supernatural cannot be proven with the degree of certitude that science offers, nor can it be proven via scientific method. Were a supernatural idea ever proven by science it would instantly stop being supernatural in any meaningful way, just like the Big Bang theory.

And that's a problem because?

It isnt presented by me as a problem, at least not untill MetNat idiots come along and say something stupid like 'Prove that miracle happened with science!'

Cant happen and never will happen.

But the supernatural can be witnessed, as I myself have personally witnessed such things.

And that's a problem because human witnesses are notoriously unreliable.

And yet the experimental process of the scientific method DEPENDs on people acurately and faithfully providing accounts of what they witnessed in the lab; and you are right, it is notoriously unreliable, for example, Piltdown Man, and the MIT verification experiments on Cold Fusion which were a complete fraud and they actually reported false data when the actual data confirmed LENR.

The supernatural can be proven via records, video and situational and circumstantial evidence, for which a metaphysical naturalist would deny no matter what was presented since it violates the starting axioms.

Please provide us with at least one unambiguous instance where supernatural phenomenon was verified by the scientific method.

I already have; the Big Bang. Prior to the scientific theory, it was regarded as a miraculous event of creation and derided as 'magic' by secular heathenists. Once science proved it by natural law, it was proven to not be miraculous in the narrowest sense of the word, but providential instead.