|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Since I can prove my case and you can't you lose. And I'll defend that any time. A Great Debate thread if you wish.
quote: In other words you lied and I called your bluff. It's funny how "Christians" try to make it sound so easy while hiding a whole lot of other conditions. Remember what you said:
But you are welcome to join us any time by simply asking God to save you
In fact I can't seriously want something that makes no sense to me, nor can I say that I will automatically accept any beliefs you choose to tell me are essential. So I guess that your hidden conditions make it far from "simple".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Yes, well, one would think a person would know you can't ask God for something in such a cavalier way, but OK I wasn't specific enough and you can use the occasion to be right about something it would be better not to be right about.
No I wouldn't debate you on the meaning of the Bible. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Yes, well, one would think a person would know you can't ask God for something in such a cavalier way, but OK I wasn't specific enough and you can use the occasion to be right about something it would be better not to be right about.
In fact I did realise that you were lying. And what is it that it "would be better not to be right about" ? And why ?
quote: In other words I am willing to back my claim up - and you are not. Maybe you realise that misrepresenting a pathetically bad commentary is not exactly a good argument. Or maybe I am expecting too much of you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I'm sure it's a good thing that I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Enjoy your snark for whatever it's worth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Certainly you don't like it when your ridiculous errors get brought to light. But enough of that. Your attempt to deny that you are anti-science based on definition games and false pride in your own beliefs has failed. As anyone with any sense would expect. And that really is an end to that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I shall try to savor your lies.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
What lies ?
I guess you mean - as usual - truths you don't like.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And that one too,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Faith writes: God gives the knowledge in this case, there is no need for the methods of fallen intellect. Actually, the truth is exactly the opposite - we've proven that religious beliefs can not reliably inform us of anything to do with the natural world and, when it tries, it's always wrong - from planetary movements, to medical conditions, to the age of the earth. Just flat out, in your face wrong.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Again there is no lie.
But since you insist on refusing to shut up let us look at what a modern online dictionary says that "science' means:
dictionary,com
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. When we describe you as anti-science we usually refer to the second meaning, although the third could equally well apply. And yet your argument refuses to even accept that those definitions exist. So yes, you are playing a definition game by ignoring definitions that are much more common and more applicable before we even get into the question of whether your belief counts as knowledge. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined: |
I don't see any evidence that those people are creationists.
Well let's just pick one. You can investigate the others yourself, beginning with the link I gave. Michael FaradayIn 1821, Faraday was accepted as a member of the Royal Societythe professional body where the foremost scientists exchanged discoveries and ideas. In a book on Faraday and electricity, Brian Bowers writes that ‘it seems likely that his religious belief in a single Creator encouraged his scientific belief in the unity of forces, the idea that magnetism, electricity and the other forces have a common origin. When Faraday retired from the Royal Institution after almost 50 years, he thanked those who had worked with him during those years. However, he was careful to ‘Thank God, first, for all his gifts’.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CRR Member (Idle past 2264 days) Posts: 579 From: Australia Joined:
|
"Science" simply means "knowledge," It's a bit more than just knowledge. Consider these five possible definitions:-(1) Science is nothing else than the search to discover unity in the wild variety of nature (J. Bronowski). (2) The business of science is to find uniformities, such as the laws of motion and the law of gravitation, to which, so far as our experience extends, there are no exceptions (B. Russell). (3) Falsifiability is the criterion of demarcation between science and non-science (K. Popper). (4) What is science? At its core, science is observation. . . . science is empiricism (D. Breese). (5) Science involves observation, using one or more of our five senses, to gain cumulative knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations (K. Ham). However we can't agree on a definition of the Theory of Evolution so it's unlikely the broader subject of science will fare better. For a start we would have to differentiate between Origins vs Operational science. But why does science work? According to C.S. Lewis: Science began with belief in a Lawmaker
‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appearedthe hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’
Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Doesn't work that way. God does it all or it's not valid. You can't believe the Bible is God's word unless He causes you to believe it. That's your fallible interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
His religion may have encouraged him but he did not use religion in the actual scientific investigations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
CRR writes: I don't see any evidence that those people are creationists. Professor Dr Bernard Brandstater, Prof. Stuart Burgess, Professor Dr Ben Carson, Dr Raymond Damadian, Dr John Hartnett, Dr Raymond Jones, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Dr John Sanford, Dr Wally (Siang Hwa) Tow You would need to research into the biographies and writings of each and every person in that list in order to make that determination. Since CRR presented that list and claimed them all to be creationists, it is incumbent on CRR to provide that information. I do know that plant geneticist Dr. John Sanford is and IDist and a YEC. The only reason I know that is that a local creationist cited him in a debate as a scientific source, making sure to repeatedly point to his PhD, without making even a single mention that he was also a YEC. He did the same thing with another PhD with absolutely no mention that she's a professional creationist and spokesperson for AiG. IOW, that creationist was deliberately lying to the audience. You should have recognized Dr. Ben Carson, the one who believes that the pyramids were built to store grain and now heads HUD, a post for which he is ill suited.
CRR writes: Yeah, not to mention. Scientists who were unaware of the ToE or did not attempt to use Biblical-based creationism in their scientific work were not creationists in the modern sense. Not to mention all past scientists such as Faraday and Maxwell. Excellent point. One that CRR completely ignored in his reply, Message 131. So what's his point? ABE:Though the story of Dr. John Sanford raises a pertinent question. A person can be both religious, deeply religious even, and a scientist with no problem, just so long as he actually does science when serving as a scientist. That may require some compartmentalization. Certainly there is no problem with pursuing science motivated strongly by one's religious beliefs, but there is a problem with having religious motivation to subvert science. So the question is whether being a creationist in the modern sense would interfere with one's ability to do science, to make significant scientific contributions. In the Wikipedia article on Sanford he is described:
quote:Reviewing his significant work and accomplishments, they are all in the 1980's and 1990's, before he became a YEC. That must mean something. Edited by dwise1, : ABE
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024