[noguru]

Originally Posted by chatmaggot

I admitted to that earlier in this thread. I said it isn't a matter of being biased...but which bias is the best bias to be biased with!

So you are claiming that a literal interpretation of Genesis is the best bias to have?

How do you arrive at that conclusion?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by chatmaggot

My point is the following:

An adherence to an evolutionary worldview distorts the world that is viewed! Having a commitment to evolutionary thinking results in, time and again, evolutionary scientist being "surprised" or "amazed" at discoveries.

By believing that ancient organisms are simpler or less complex or should be a certain way (as a result of believing in evolution) they repeatedly find just the opposite! Even Metro Atheist admitted that it doesn't matter how many times they are amazed or shocked, they will still hold to their belief.

Rather than questioning their evolutionary presuppositions, they hold to them which results in further surprises and amazements.

The only thing that one can conclude is that evolutionary scientist hold their belief because they want to be continually surprised.

As opposed to you, a person who does not want any surprises?

[IoverE]

Originally Posted by chatmaggot

I fixed it for you.

I'm sure every thought in your head is exactly like that. Ignore what you don't want to hear, then change it in your head and you never have to question or learn. Like Homer Simpson at the nuclear plant when it's about to blow up and he's thinking of donuts. Mmmmm donuts

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by chatmaggot

Watch this.

I am a Christian and believe that what the Bible says about creation is true.

The Bible says that God created living creatures fully formed.

If I were to go looking for evidence of organisms from the past, I would expect to find complex, fully formed organisms just the way they were created.

Let us know when you find bunny fossils with T. rex.

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by chatmaggot

I would like to add that just because we know who created matter and life doesn't mean we know everything about matter and life.

Who is this "we", kemo sabi?

[noguru]

Originally Posted by IoverE

I'm sure every thought in your head is exactly like that. Ignore what you don't want to hear, then change it in your head and you never have to question or learn. Like Homer Simpson at the nuclear plant when it's about to blow up and he's thinking of donuts. Mmmmm donuts

Mmmm donuts. They give you that warm fuzzy feeling in your stomach.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by chatmaggot

I would like to add that just because we know who created matter and life doesn't mean we know everything about matter and life.

We have no empirical evidence that matter can be either created or destroyed. According to Einstien, matter/energy follows the first law of thermodynamics. It can be converted, but it cannot be created or destroyed. IOW, it appears (based on our current knowledge) to be eternal.

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by chatmaggot

My point is the following:

An adherence to an evolutionary worldview distorts the world that is viewed! Having a commitment to evolutionary thinking results in, time and again, evolutionary scientist being "surprised" or "amazed" at discoveries.

By believing that ancient organisms are simpler or less complex or should be a certain way (as a result of believing in evolution) they repeatedly find just the opposite! Even Metro Atheist admitted that it doesn't matter how many times they are amazed or shocked, they will still hold to their belief.

Rather than questioning their evolutionary presuppositions, they hold to them which results in further surprises and amazements.

The only thing that one can conclude is that evolutionary scientist hold their belief because they want to be continually surprised.

Isn't one of the functions of science to constantly amaze and surprise us? How boring would it be if it did not do that!

[noguru]

Originally Posted by Jukia

Isn't one of the functions of science to constantly amaze and surprise us? How boring would it be if it did not do that!

Without science I guess all of our lives would be like the life of a creaionist mathematician.

[chatmaggot]

Originally Posted by Jukia

Isn't one of the functions of science to constantly amaze and surprise us? How boring would it be if it did not do that!

I am not saying we cannot be amazed at what we discover...but when our presuppositions continue to be wrong...we should change our presuppositions.

It's an easy fix really. If your presuppositions constantly results in you being surprised and amazed and shocked at what you find, then change your presuppositions.

For example. Suppose I believed that gravity did not exist. I toss a ball in the air. It comes back down. I am amazed because my presuppositions tell me that it shouldn't be that way.

I walk to the top of a building. I let loose of a ball from the roof. My presuppositions tell me that it should not fall. Once I let go...it falls. I am amazed at this.

Rather than change my presuppositions I continue to hold to hold to one that results in my predictions to be false.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by chatmaggot

It's an easy fix really. If your presuppositions constantly results in you being surprised and amazed and shocked at what you find, then change your presuppositions.

For example. Suppose I believed that gravity did not exist. I toss a ball in the air. It comes back down. I am amazed because my presuppositions tell me that it shouldn't be that way.

I walk to the top of a building. I let loose of a ball from the roof. My presuppositions tell me that it should not fall. Once I let go...it falls. I am amazed at this.

Rather than change my presuppositions I continue to hold to hold to one that results in my predictions to be false.

The vast number of variables in the biological world make it much more complex than gravity. This is a poor analogy in regard to the predictive power of each idea and the possiblities that exist. As a mathematician you should be aware of this.

Please can you give us an example of the predictive power of your model of origins? For your claim "that your bias is the best" to be true there must be a comparison done between both models/biases.

[chatmaggot]

Originally Posted by noguru

The vast number of variables in the biological world make it much more complex than gravity. This is a poor analogy in regard to the predictive power of each idea and the possiblities that exist. As a mathematician you should be aware of this.

This was not an analogy about the predictive power of an idea.

It was an analogy illustrating that holding to a presupposition that continues to be shown false distorts your worldview (the title of this thread).

[noguru]

Originally Posted by chatmaggot

This was not an analogy about the predictive power of an idea.

It was an analogy illustrating that holding to a presupposition that continues to be shown false distorts your worldview (the title of this thread).

I will reiterate again. It is not false in a general sense. It is inaccurate in some of the details, because the biological world is so complex and intricate. The same is not true for gravity. You did hold up gravity as an example and a comparison to naturalistic evolution. Now you are claiming it was not an analogy. But it is obvious that is what you intended.

[chatmaggot]

Originally Posted by noguru

I will reiterate again. It is not false in a general sense. It is inaccurate in some of the details, because the biological world is so complex and intricate. The same is not true for gravity. You did hold up gravity as an example and a comparison to naturalistic evolution. Now you are claiming it was not an analogy. But it is obvious that is what you intended.

Follow me here. I was not equating gravity to evolution or to hot pockets or to whatever.

I was illustrating how believing something that is wrong distorts ones worldview.

[noguru]

Originally Posted by chatmaggot

Follow me here. I was not equating gravity to evolution or to hot pockets or to whatever.

I was illustrating how believing something that is wrong distorts ones worldview.

I agree that believing something that is wrong distorts ones world view. You have an incredible knack for stating the obvious. Science tries to find the most accurate explanation for the empirical evidence. You need to demonstrate how your bias is more accurate. Do you get it? It is a lack intellectually integrity that allows one to not shine the same light of critical thinking on one's own bias that one has placed on a competing bias.