Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 0/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the point of this forum?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 10 of 139 (535443)
11-16-2009 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by slevesque
11-16-2009 12:14 AM


The internet
And obviously, on the internet, you will find a lot of scientifically qualified proponents of evolution, but very, very, veyr few on the YEC side (primarily because those that are interested in the subject are already working for CMI, AiG, etc.). And so the debate becomes very one-sided and artificial (since one side is not well qualified and usually don't have a good understanding ot it), but at least the debate takes place.
The internet lets every opinion be heard.
I have been told, on another forum, that scientists are "of satan."
The internet has made it possible for such fringe opinions be spread about as if they had some validity. And some folks, seeing those posts, might actually believe such nonsense.
Websites like this serve the purpose of rebutting such abject nonsense. No one will convince the true believers of anything, but we can at least present a reasoned and logical rebuttal to such fringe beliefs, and in so doing prevent a lot of folks from swallowing those falsehoods.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 12:14 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 32 of 139 (535597)
11-16-2009 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by slevesque
11-16-2009 10:01 PM


True scientists
I am adressing your initial stance that there are no true scientists who know what they are talking about on the creationist side of the debate.
So is it your position that one can be a "true scientist" while rejecting the scientific method in favor of scripture and "divine" revelation as the highest form of knowledge?
Just where do you draw the line?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 10:01 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:16 AM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 48 of 139 (535680)
11-17-2009 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by slevesque
11-17-2009 3:16 AM


Re: True scientists
you are redefining creationist as one who rejects the scientific method in favor of scripture "divine" revelation as the highest form of knowledge?
But of course, this is not the definition of creationist. It goes more along the lines of someone who believes that God created the universe. (... 6000 years ago for YEC, which is what I am referring to when using simply creationist)
Given the correcte definition, I find it safe to say that someone can be a true scientist and be a creationist.
Someone who believes that the earth is 6000 years old rejects the scientific method.
This is the point of my post, above. Creationists love to trot out their tame "scientists" to show that "true scientists" can be creationists also.
But a scientist who accepts "divine" revelation and scripture as the highest forms of knowledge, and the scientific method as secondary to those, is not doing science in spite of any scientific training or credentials! The method determines what one is doing, not the credentials.
That is where the young earth creationists and the flood geologists (and others) fail as scientists--they reject the scientific method.
In reality, these folks often publish a lot of scientific papers in their particular fields, but they use the scientific method when they do so.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:16 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 58 of 139 (535772)
11-17-2009 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by slevesque
11-17-2009 5:01 PM


Knockout blows
Edited by Coyote, : Good post hidden per moderator warning

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 5:01 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 72 of 139 (535936)
11-18-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Arphy
11-18-2009 6:00 PM


Lies
It does matter to the creationists because as christians we find it important not to lie. To lie is to sin against God which is the opposite of the way that christians are trying to live their lives.
But the web is full of creationist lies; when creationists argue a point of belief (e.g., the "global" flood) and the facts are pointed out to them time after time, but they still come back with the same argument time after time--that can only be called a lie (although possibly it is self-delusion, i.e., lying to one's self).
As a different subject, what compels an athiest to tell the truth and not lie? It may harm his career if he gets caught or he might "feel" that he shouldn't, but as such s/he does not have to subject him or herself to any higher authority except for what s/he decides if this is in their best interest. So an athiest is not "restricted" to telling the truth, they may "choose" to, but they are not compelled by anything other than what the "choose" to be compelled by (e.g. standing in scientific community).
Speaking as a scientist (presumably that's an atheist to you), I hate errors with a passion. I can remember virtually every instance in which I have made an error in my professional career. I spend a lot of time checking facts and sources in an effort to avoid errors, and do my best to couch my writings in careful terms when I offer opinions that extrapolate the data.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Arphy, posted 11-18-2009 6:00 PM Arphy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Blzebub, posted 11-18-2009 6:56 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 79 of 139 (535972)
11-18-2009 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Arphy
11-18-2009 11:19 PM


Lying for the lord?
Coyote seems to have a "feeling" of hate towards errors, and so presumably he trys to avoid telling lies. However we are all capable of doing something that we hate if it suits our purpose for a larger goal.
Speak for yourself.
Science is the exact opposite of lying and of unswerving belief in some particular dogma.
Lies will be caught out, but that's not the reason the vast majority of scientists try their absolute best to avoid not only lies but errors of any kind. The real reason is that those are both the antithesis of science.
You seem to think that "we are all capable of doing something that we hate if it suits our purpose for a larger goal" -- but I hope you don't approve of that, or that you don't really believe it.
Lying might be appropriate to promote one's religious beliefs (there is even a name for this in Islam), but that concept is entirely foreign to science and any scientists who are caught lying or even fudging data are persona non grata from then on.
Perhaps if you knew something of science you would know this. (And yes, you have touched on a particular pet peeve of mine.)

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Arphy, posted 11-18-2009 11:19 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by slevesque, posted 11-19-2009 2:01 AM Coyote has replied
 Message 99 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 8:41 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 91 of 139 (536036)
11-19-2009 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by slevesque
11-19-2009 2:01 AM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Your reply in post #82 does not address the points I had made in post #79. The links about science you included are completely irrelevant to my post.
And the CMI article you cite is typical anti-science, self-serving creationist pap. That author, Carl Wieland, has a long history of writing such nonsense.
He believes dinosaurs and humans cavorted about after the flood. Given this, and his completely anti-science attitude, he has no right to even opine on matters scientific.
Care to try again?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by slevesque, posted 11-19-2009 2:01 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by slevesque, posted 11-19-2009 1:36 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 103 of 139 (536111)
11-19-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Arphy
11-19-2009 9:48 PM


More creationist pap
Here is a reply to an accusation that i just read recently if anyone's interested.
Creationists are liars (?) - creation.com
Sorry to have to tell you this, but that's typical creationist pap.
Its based on ignoring or misrepresenting evidence, and coming up with one's own interpretation--one that differs from the interpretation of the scientific community.
That's the kind of "lying for the lord" that we're talking about.
Example: the article disclaims a common ancestor for apes and humans because that common ancestor hasn't been found. Actually we have fossil data quite close to the common ancestor, so that point is moot. And, we have genetic data supporting the common ancestry of all primates--which is totally ignored. Typical creation "science" eh?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 9:48 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 10:27 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 106 of 139 (536128)
11-19-2009 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Arphy
11-19-2009 10:27 PM


Re: More creationist pap
As for your "fossil data" and "genetic data", this article wasn't written as an in depth analysis of these points. it was commenting on Prothero's claims. Keep looking round creation.com for articles that do go into these points in more depth.
I've read a lot of those articles, particularly in the fields of radiocarbon dating and fossil man, two areas with which I am familiar.
I've seen some real whoppers passed off to the willfully ignorant as TRVTH. One prime example:
quote:
The relevant evidence clearly shows that Homo sapiens sensu lato is a separate and distinct entity from the other hominids. No overall evolutionary progression is to be found. Adam and Eve, and not the australopiths/habilines, are our actual ancestors. As pointed out by other creationists [e.g., Lubenow9], Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis can best be understood as racial variants of modern man—all descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel (Source).
Now I can go into the details if you wish, but among other gems this little paragraph has macroevolution, which creationists deny occurs, happening several hundred times faster than paleontologists propose and in reverse! And then, for some unknown reason, stopping abruptly and all traces of these critters suddenly burrowed down into geological layers tens to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years too old.
This kind of writing and thinking bears no relation to science, and is flatly contradicted by mountains of scientific evidence. The creationists who peddle this are willfully ignorant, having lied to themselves to sustain their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
This may be good apologetics, but it is not science. And its not truthful.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 10:27 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Arphy, posted 11-20-2009 1:32 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 124 of 139 (536195)
11-20-2009 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by dwise1
11-20-2009 4:35 AM


Creationists doing science
Your creationism can't do science? Well, there's probably a very good reason for that!
Actually there is a recent case of creationists doing science.
The RATE project, a half dozen creationists with scientific credentials and over a million dollars of creationist money, set out to prove that the decay constant wasn't a constant so as to discredit radiometric dating.
Here are the key findings (from the first link, below):
The key points of the book can be summarized as follows:
  1. There is overwhelming evidence of more than 500 million years worth of radioactive decay.
  2. Biblical interpretation and some scientific studies indicate a young earth.
  3. Therefore, radioactive decay must have been accelerated by approximately a factor of one billion during the first three days of creation and during the Flood.
  4. The concept of accelerated decay leads to two unresolved scientific problems, the heat problem and the radiation problem, though there is confidence that these will be solved in the future.
  5. Therefore, the RATE project provides encouragement regarding the reliability of the Bible.
Another point from the first link:
    Another key point (from the second link below):
      In other words, when creationists actually do real science they come up with results that duplicate those of scientists!
      And, they refuse to accept the results of their own studies because they conflict with their a priori religious beliefs.
      Maybe creationists should leave science to scientists, eh?
      Links:
      Assessing the RATE Project
      Page not found - Reasons to Believe
      Off topic disclaimer
      Concerning the topic, which may have been lost dozens of posts back: this post might (charitably) be considered on topic as an example of "the point of this forum" -- that point being reasoned dialog on the subject of creation and/or evolution. ;-)
      Edited by Coyote, : spelling: "money" really should have an 'e' in it somewhere

      Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

      This message is a reply to:
       Message 116 by dwise1, posted 11-20-2009 4:35 AM dwise1 has not replied

        
      Newer Topic | Older Topic
      Jump to:


      Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

      ™ Version 4.2
      Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024