|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the point of this forum? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
you are redefining creationist as one who rejects the scientific method in favor of scripture "divine" revelation as the highest form of knowledge?
Someone who believes that the earth is 6000 years old rejects the scientific method. 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
...where Dawkins has the chance to give the creation movement the knockout blows ?
The knockout blows are in the technical journals and museums. There are floors and floors of journals, and thousands of museums with full basements and attics. Why do you think creationists want to avoid those places at all costs, and conduct their debates in front of church audiences where showmanship will carry the day? (Hint: they have no evidence.) Edited by Coyote, : Good post hidden per moderator warning Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Here is a reply to an accusation that i just read recently if anyone's interested.
Sorry to have to tell you this, but that's typical creationist pap. Creationists are liars (?) - creation.com 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
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:
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024