Difference between religion and science fora

This is off topic. Please, no replies. --AdminRight, just call all the demonstrations of the absurdities and the lack of evidence behind the ToE "nonsense" and that'll do it. That's how the whole shebang holds itself up, that and the disingenuous parsing of facts that is Jar's particular talent and it's an airtight indisputable unchallengeable edifice. There's more I didn't say, but what's the point. Ah well. What else did I expect. Reason? Ha!This message has been edited by Admin, 08-01-2005 04:38 PM

This is off topic. Please, no replies. --AdminAt one point in the past myself and others were perfectly willing to engage you in a legitimate discussion. I remember the first thread you came in on about mutations. I carefully crafted quite a number of posts to you describing the evidence we have that mutations exist and that they do produce novelty. None of these were even replied to; even with a polite promise to return to them. You still had the benefit of the doubt back then.Then there was a new geology thread which distracted you away from the evo side of things. I stayed out of it as much as I could but at some point I felt that an amature's description of things would help you be able to participate in a more rigerous way. Since I had once been a YEC, was a Christian, and an amature at the debate, I thought somehow that we could connect. We sorta did.Then there was the whole original Islam thread. Lets ignore that shall we since it was not related to EvC. The result from that thread though was a desire not to debate with you further.I changed my mind when the sediment thread came up. I remembered that we had some good discussion on the previous geology thread and I still had hopes that our common ground could lead to a productive discussion. In that thread I tried VERY hard to honestly, patiently, and polietly address each of the things you were so incredulous about with regards to modern geology. What I got back was antagonism.So now here we are. How am I now supposed to treat your posts now after so many failures? Especially now that you have the warm and fuzzy realm of the new fora to basically go buck wild with your style of debate without ever having to acknowledge that your style and attitude have been nothing but a hinderance to your argument for your entire history here at EvC.It is not that people have not wanted or tried to connect with you, it is simply that they could not. You were so intriguing at first because you were a YEC that seemed smart and fun to engage. In reality it is nothing but pretty window dressing on the same old disappointment.This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-01-2005 02:37 PMThis message has been edited by Admin, 08-01-2005 04:39 PM

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I'm placing your comments in the proper context: I was only explaining why scientists have high confidence in the fact of evolution. I already suspected that you weren't really interested in the opinion of scientists, but you asked about ratings of tentativity, so I told you how scientists see it for evolution.But this is not a thread for discussion of evolution. I hope the replies do not attempt to address the substance of your post, at least not without placing it in the broader context of this thread, though that doesn't look easily possible. I can tell you've got a lot of pent up desire to discuss evolution, but this isn't the thread for that.I thought your question about tentativity was a good one. Perhaps you can return to discussing tentativity, since it would be on-topic.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 08-01-2005 04:37 PM

There is not yet unanimity of opinion among moderators about the religious fora, but I've been arguing strongly that nonsense is nonsense no matter where presented, and that it should not permitted under any circumstances. Participants should be required to support their points with argument and evidence as much in the religious fora as in the science fora. The difference is that religious arguments and religious evidence are permitted in the religious fora.Using your example, anyone arguing that the geologic layers do not represent millions of years by normal physical processes would have to provide supporting argument and evidence. But anyone arguing that the layers are not old because God only made them look old has a permissible argument in the religious fora.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 08-01-2005 04:51 PM

That seems just fine but that is not how it is being moderated. Sift through Why TOE is not accepted and you find many an instance of exactly what I described occuring. I know moderating is a busy job and it is volunteer but lately it seems like, "if you don't catch the cat in the act you can't punish them because they wont understand." The mandate seems to come from the whole, "I don't have to make any sense because this is not the science fora." That is the attitude being portrayed and I if not many others are getting quite frustrated with it.

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

You are 100% correct.I was just hoping that being a moderator would "keep him off the streets", as it were.And who knows? As a moderator, he might learn something about objectivity.( Ok, probably not.)

---

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

The bit about tentativity came up because I was upbraided and rebuked for using the term "proof" and soundly reviled as in "HAVEN'T WE TOLD YOU A MILLION TIMES THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AND THAT ALL SCIENCE IS TENTATIVE AND HOW DARE YOU USE THAT WORD AGAIN YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO LEARN ANYTHING ABOUT SCIENCE and so on and so forth. So, if that's the case, and one is not allowed to use the term "proof" in order to contrast it with the prooflessness of evolution, and all science is tentative, then what is needed is a scale of degrees of tentativity so that I can perhaps humbly begin to meet the exacting terminological requirements for discussing the different degrees of tentativity between, for instance, the theory that the earth revolves around the sun, which can be classed as a super-duper-high-tentativity-just-short-of-Proof, and the Theory of Evolution, which should be rated as an abysmally low-end-tentativity-approximately-at-the-reality-level-of-the Emperor's New Clothes.
Thank you.{Edit: Actually I got the high and the low backwards, but I'm not up to changing the wording at this point. Evo is of course high unprovability-level tentativity, and solarcentric solar system is low-to-nonexistent tentativity.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-02-2005 03:33 AM

deleted by authorThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 05:27 PM

He he.Yet another symptom of rampant nonsense discussion. Cynicism abounds. One has to look no further than simple's thread and they myriad of posts about the Invisible Pink Unicorn. I believe there was even a whole page dedicated to pure cynicism regarding the farts of the IPU.Although these are mightily funny. Is this really the type of discussion we want to foster on a regular basis given the "free reign" practices now in the non-science fora?This message has been edited by Jazzns, 08-01-2005 03:33 PM

---

Organizations worth supporting:
Electronic Frontier Foundation | Defending your rights in the digital world (Protect Privacy and Security)
Home | American Civil Liberties Union (Protect Civil Rights)
AAUP (Protect Higher Learning)

I would think that certain topics require one to assume something in order to argue at all--for example, some topics might require one to assume the existence of God. Then and only then would it make sense to argue the topic. As long as the assumptions are known, then after that the logic should be as rigorous as possible. You would want to keep the assumptions to a minimum.

how can we have sensible discussion where the premise is alway wrapped in "but those dirty evo-scientists - they would just lie anyway!"Because even when it's not explict it's soon shoe-horned on (unless it's the poster who has a hard-on for diagrams and then they are inserted in).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 06:22 PM

---

And the youth, looking upon him (Jesus), loved him and beseeched that he might remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of he youth, for he was rich. And after six days, Jesus instructed him and, at evening, the youth came to him wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of GodSt. Mark chapter 10 (between verses 34 and 35 in the standard version of the bible)

Hmmm...My own feeling is that if the argument and debate gets sharpened as the topic is brought up again, then let it go on. If there comes a time, after awhile, that there the issue or argument is not getting clearer, and it's just a repeat, then I think maybe then it should be cooled down.Obviously, I have shown a tendency to bring up certain concepts such as aspects of quantum physics dealing with the nature of physical existence, aspects of how evolution is taught, etc,...I have brought up Haeckel's drawings a lot but at the same time, there is still considerable more being brought out on the topic, such as the interesting fact I did not realize until this last month, that Von Baer was not actually an evolutionist and a critic of Darwin, which is worth noting just as history considering how Darwin used Vom Baer's work.On Faith's posts, I haven't spent a lot of time on the geology area of the forum so I don't know what is being rehashed or what has not, but it's my experience this works both ways.Just how many times do we need to hear evolutionists insist that micro-evolution equates macro-evolution when obviously the other side doesn't buy that? Creationists and IDers, as you know, don't dispute speciation so we should be able to get past that, but we usually don't for some reason.It would be nice for some to actually try to show they understand the other side before bashing it, and that goes both ways of course.On the issue of facts, you raise a very good point, and that's something I have wanted to bring up. We have to look at how we determine something is a fact, and not just assert it is one, and that should always be a critical part of any discussion. The assumptions, observations, interpretations, etc,...play a large role in categorizing something as "fact."For me, it's not the labels whether "fact" or "interpretation" that count, but communicating the understanding of the event, thing, or process.

Thanks Faith. He does appear to be very disingenious here which seems to be part of a pattern when some are losing an argument.I'd like to hear some actual "evidence" as well, but don't necessarily expect it.

Awesome post.Imo, evolutionists need to start dealing with some of these criticisms instead of trying to use sophistry to argue their way around them.There could be a lot of real discussion of the problems of evolutionary theory, if evolutionists wouldn't try so hard to deny the problems even existed.

Well, fair enough, but then you went on to list several things that you said were "proved" in science, one of which actually wasn't correct.Can you understand where the confusion lies when you do something like this?We know you reject Evolution, Faith, which is why, when you use the word "proof" in the way you have been, it tends to lead us to thinking that you misunderstand the meaning WRT science just like most other creationists misunderstand (and misuse) the meaning.The truth is, you do make many errors when you discuss the science. When others, even professional scientists, attempt to correct those errors, you often resist or retreat. Can you really blame us for not assuming you understand the tentative way scientists use the word "proof"?What is so repugnant about using the standardized vocabulary? Isn't your goal in your writing to communicate your meaning as clearly as possible? I know it is with me, and it seems to be so with you as well. By refusing to use the standard terms, it is as though you are expecting Russian speakers to figure out what you mean when you occasionally slip in some Portugese words every now and then in conversation, and then blaming the Russian speakers for not figuring out what you mean.If you use the standard terminology, there will be no question of what you mean, and we can move forward.You need to speak in our language if you want us to understand.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 08-02-2005 08:46 AM