Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 157 (8161 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-23-2014 8:06 AM
54 online now:
AZPaul3, Colbard, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric (6 members, 48 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: NAME OF THE ROSE
Post Volume:
Total: 741,716 Year: 27,557/28,606 Month: 2,614/2,244 Week: 18/710 Day: 18/129 Hour: 1/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Author Topic:   Do the religious want scientific enquiry to end?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1137 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 61 of 111 (529258)
10-08-2009 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by AdminNosy
10-08-2009 5:36 PM


Re: A second new thread
I have the impression that a thread on this will be done once the creationist movie 'the voyage' will come out on sale.

But the first one will be two hard to handle I think, I think I did a good job trying to take away the negative connotations attached to the word 'assumptions' in its relation to scientific inquiry, and still took a lot of writing for this simple fact. I'm afraid going all out and introducing a whole set alternative assumptions to the current data in science (historical science, at least) would be uncontrolable.

But hey, when that movie is released, I'll be in the discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by AdminNosy, posted 10-08-2009 5:36 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 10-08-2009 5:55 PM slevesque has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 4823
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 62 of 111 (529262)
10-08-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by slevesque
10-08-2009 5:00 PM


Re: Assumptions
If you look at my previous post, you will see that I didn't equate assumptions with wrong.

Nor was I picking on you when I responded.

But I have seen some creationists equate "assumptions" with "wrong" or "totally unsupported" or "wild-ass guess" just so they could cast doubt on the conclusions without doing the work to show just how those assumptions were wrong.

If we ever get Cal to a radiocarbon dating page I'm sure you'll see the gamut of typical creationist responses, including this one.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 5:00 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 5:55 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1137 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 63 of 111 (529263)
10-08-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Perdition
10-08-2009 5:32 PM


I'm not really respondint to what yo uhave said. But being in math's and physics I would love to have the references to those supernovae data you were talking about, so I could check it out.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Perdition, posted 10-08-2009 5:32 PM Perdition has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Perdition, posted 10-09-2009 3:39 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 64 of 111 (529266)
10-08-2009 5:54 PM


Ok let me try again
Ok let's try again to address the original topic...

I'd like to see some replies from creationists to the following questions:

a) Would you like to see and end to, or a curbing of, scientific enquiry?

b) If not, how will you react if evidence comes forward that contradicts statements from your holy text of choice?


Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:51 AM Briterican has not yet responded

    
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1137 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 65 of 111 (529267)
10-08-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Coyote
10-08-2009 5:51 PM


Re: Assumptions
He said he would talk about it. We'll see hehe

Poor Cal, he's Gish galloping at an ever alarming rate on his threads. He seems like a nice guy, but this is not how you debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Coyote, posted 10-08-2009 5:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8590
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 66 of 111 (529268)
10-08-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by slevesque
10-08-2009 5:47 PM


Re: A second new thread
In other words you can't do it and no one has on the creationist web sites.

That is why RAZD's excellent "correlations" thread in dating acts like garlic to a vampire as far as the YEC's are concerned. They (meaning all the various websites and organizations like AIG and ICR) are totally unable to touch it.

There are no working alternative 'interpretations'. That is why the scientific consensus is where it is -- no one can do better, no one can do as well and no one can come even close.

That is true for dating, that is true for the pattern in the fossil record with it's correlation to genetics and true for the rest of science.

Do not bring the "interpretation's" out as a weapon when it is loaded with blanks. We know that there aren't any, k?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 5:47 PM slevesque has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 6:03 PM NosyNed has responded

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 1137 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 67 of 111 (529275)
10-08-2009 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by NosyNed
10-08-2009 5:55 PM


Re: A second new thread
got a link for that thread ?

Because, of course, that is all your own opinion on this. Creationism as a whole is a alternate set of assumptions that explain the data as well. (note: this is my opinion of course)

I was just saying, starting a whole new thread presenting creationism and how it correlates with all the facts would be to much for me to do, not just because it would be hard for a university student like me to put it all down and find the time to do so, but also because it would generate in uncontrolable amount of responses for me to answer.

EDIT: sorry Briterican, I'm stoping here. No more posts by me unless I can advance the discussion relating directly to your questions.

Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by NosyNed, posted 10-08-2009 5:55 PM NosyNed has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Briterican, posted 10-08-2009 6:16 PM slevesque has not yet responded
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 10-08-2009 7:49 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 445 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 68 of 111 (529281)
10-08-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by slevesque
10-08-2009 6:03 PM


Re: A second new thread
sorry Briterican, I'm stoping here. No more posts by me unless I can advance the discussion relating directly to your questions.

S'ok, I'm just happy the thread didn't already die.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 6:03 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8590
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 69 of 111 (529305)
10-08-2009 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by slevesque
10-08-2009 6:03 PM


Re: A second new thread
Message 1 Age Correlations and an Old Earth

If this was answerable you'd be able to find answers somewhere I would guess. But you're right, you'd have a huge amount of work to and that is perhaps too much to ask.

However, if you can't offer at least some of those interpretations and defend them then you shouldn't pretend they are an answer to anything.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 6:03 PM slevesque has not yet responded

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 70 of 111 (529352)
10-09-2009 4:15 AM


yes they do, and I rest my case
http://crookedti.../tom-coburn-doesnt-like-political-science

O Emm Gee


    
tuffers
Member (Idle past 1772 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 71 of 111 (529357)
10-09-2009 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Izanagi
10-08-2009 1:25 PM


Re: It's less complicated than you think
Izanagi

I agree with a lot of what you say. However, it depends a lot on what "religion" actually means to an individual.

It comes down to whether you regard your particular religion as just a feel-good bit of nonsense that helps you get through the day, or whether you are a fundamentalist who literally believes in the creation stories or whatever else is preached by your religion. But the fact remains that even if you are not a fundamentalist and you allow observed evidence to overrule religious dogma wherever that may be possible, there will always remain some of the religion's dogma that cannot be touched by science. If any religion's dogma was completely open to scientific analysis, then it would either be disproven or proven. If it were proven, it would just become part of our common knowledge (or already be part of our knowledge), and therefore no longer be anything supernatural or religious.

I do think it is very interesting how so many people seem to believe in God and at the same time (in my opinion) not believe in God. For example, I'm convinced that there are many people who accept the scientific view that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, that we evolved from other species, etc, and yet at the same time (or maybe just on a Sunday) they also believe that God made the Earth in 6 days and made Adam out of dust, etc. I mean, that's exactly how I and I'm sure most other people here in the UK have been formally educated in recent decades! Most our esteemed political leaders will go to church, sing hymns and say prayers to the good old Judeo-Christian god, and yet they'd never publically deny scientific evidence that directly contradicts part of their religion's dogma. What's going on?

Enough said, I think.

Edited by tuffers, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Izanagi, posted 10-08-2009 1:25 PM Izanagi has not yet responded

    
Perdition
Member (Idle past 367 days)
Posts: 1592
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 72 of 111 (529492)
10-09-2009 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by slevesque
10-08-2009 5:51 PM


As Admin Nosy has stated, this is best for a different thread. You can check out RAZD's excellent thread about dating methods. I can always respond to your post over there with some cites...ask and ye shall receive.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by slevesque, posted 10-08-2009 5:51 PM slevesque has not yet responded

    
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 111 (573920)
08-13-2010 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Briterican
10-08-2009 5:54 PM


Re: Ok let me try again
a) Would you like to see and end to, or a curbing of, scientific enquiry?

it is not science or real scientific inquiry that we worry about. it is the oies, the bullying, the false attribution of results, theapplication, the dishonesty, the hypocrisy and so much more that is the problem.

since secular science is designed to look in the wrong direction and the wrong places for its so-called answers, they really misrepesent what science is supposed to be and do.

people are free to investigate what God did but they are not free to call God a liar, say He is wrong, or declare that their alternatives are correct over the Biblical passages.

we also want secular scientists to stop lying to children and their students. there is no such thing as evolution, in any form, thus they need to stop teaching it. Jesus said that it is better for a man to hang a millstone around his neck and drown himself than it would be to turn the faith of a child against God. secular scientists do the latter every day.

stick to real scie3nce and stop intruding on the issue of origins for that is not a scientific topic but a theological/religious one.

b) If not, how will you react if evidence comes forward that contradicts statements from your holy text of choice?

Ok let's try again to address the original topic...
I'd like to see some replies from creationists to the following questions:

a) Would you like to see and end to, or a curbing of, scientific enquiry?

b) If not, how will you react if evidence comes forward that contradicts statements from your holy text of choice?

there never will be such a discovery. there never has been either. if science disgarees with the bible then the science is wrong


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Briterican, posted 10-08-2009 5:54 PM Briterican has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 9:29 AM archaeologist has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 24942
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 74 of 111 (573955)
08-13-2010 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by archaeologist
08-13-2010 5:51 AM


on honesty.
archaeologist writes:

people are free to investigate what God did but they are not free to call God a liar, say He is wrong, or declare that their alternatives are correct over the Biblical passages.

Why?

Why should we not teach children the facts?

archaeologist writes:

we also want secular scientists to stop lying to children and their students. there is no such thing as evolution, in any form, thus they need to stop teaching it. Jesus said that it is better for a man to hang a millstone around his neck and drown himself than it would be to turn the faith of a child against God. secular scientists do the latter every day.

Yet more untruths.

It is NOT the scientists that turn folk away from Christianity but rather folk like you. When you continue to assert things that simply do not stand up to examination then as children learn the truth, the facts, they will naturally come to doubt everything you say.

When you are so obviously wrong about facts that can be checked, things like Evolution or your assertion that there was some Biblical Flood, how can you expect children to believe anything you say about those things that cannot be easily checked, things like the god you market?

archaeologist writes:

there never will be such a discovery. there never has been either. if science disgarees with the bible then the science is wrong

And that is why you fail and the kids soon learn that what you say cannot be trusted.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by archaeologist, posted 08-13-2010 5:51 AM archaeologist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by archaeologist, posted 08-15-2010 5:31 PM jar has responded

  
archaeologist
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 111 (574401)
08-15-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
08-13-2010 9:29 AM


Re: on honesty.
Why should we not teach children the facts?

evolution and other alternatives to the Bible are not the facts. evolution is like the old story of the emporer and no clothes, strip it bare from all assumptions, conjectures and speculations and it is walking down the street with nothing.

Yet more untruths.

denial is not refutation, nor are false accusations.

It is NOT the scientists that turn folk away from Christianity but rather folk like you.

no, that takes place because men 'love darkness rather than light' not because christians like me hold to the truth. don't put our responsibilities for our decision upon me or people like me. be a man and just admit you want to be lead astray.

When you continue to assert things that simply do not stand up to examination then as children learn the truth, the facts, they will naturally come to doubt everything you say.

which 'examination' are you referring to? those who use the truth or those who use secular science which does not look for the truth?

When you are so obviously wrong about facts that can be checked, things like Evolution or your assertion that there was some Biblical Flood, how can you expect children to believe anything you say about those things that cannot be easily checked, things like the god you market?

this is one thing you, people like you, evolutionists and atheists et al, just do not understand. God has made faith as one of the rules. not everything will be easily checked and one has to take God's word for it.

if you cannot take God's word for creation, the flood etc., thenhow can you take His word for salvation and heaven? neither of those can be easily checked nor proven scientifically. you just want the benefits from God nothing else. Jesus said 'pick up your cross and follow me', it won't be easy and notice He did not say 'and follow science...'

And that is why you fail and the kids soon learn that what you say cannot be trusted.

you are so wrong because you know i am telling the truth you just do not want to admit it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 08-13-2010 9:29 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Coyote, posted 08-15-2010 6:02 PM archaeologist has not yet responded
 Message 77 by jar, posted 08-15-2010 6:18 PM archaeologist has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014