Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the point of this forum?
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4631 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 31 of 139 (535595)
11-16-2009 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Wounded King
11-16-2009 6:34 PM


You are changing the goalpost, since we are not discussing creationist science peer-reviewed papers.
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. This is the position you had that I adressed.
In order to adress this, I used the fact that creationist publish in peer-reviewed journals, just liek every other scientist, and that they do research, just like every other scientist. And that, in fact, they know what they are talking about, just like every other scientist.
Therefore, that they were ''true scientists who know what they are talking about'', and so contradicting your position that no such thing existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Wounded King, posted 11-16-2009 6:34 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2009 10:52 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2009 2:10 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 34 by Blzebub, posted 11-17-2009 2:49 AM slevesque has 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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 33 of 139 (535621)
11-17-2009 2:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by slevesque
11-16-2009 10:01 PM


quote:
You are changing the goalpost, since we are not discussing creationist science peer-reviewed papers.
I think that you mean that he is objecting to your attempt to move the goalposts. Neither Sarfati's published work (I presume that you mean "Thermoelectric power and electron-phonon enhancement in YBa2Cu3O7-8" ?) nor even Stanford's make them especially well informed about evolution. Much the same can be said for Behe.
quote:
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. This is the position you had that I adressed.
In order to adress this, I used the fact that creationist publish in peer-reviewed journals, just liek every other scientist, and that they do research, just like every other scientist. And that, in fact, they know what they are talking about, just like every other scientist.
Which would be shown by them actually writing peer-reviewed papers that support the creationist position would it not ? It certainly can't be shown by pointing to Sarfati co-authoring an unrelated paper more than twenty years ago.
Sarfati's current output is more on these lines:
The Links are Missing
You may remember it, since I introduced it as an example of a long-discredited argument still being used by CMI.
quote:
Therefore, that they were ''true scientists who know what they are talking about'', and so contradicting your position that no such thing existed.
So you are actually arguing that we should assume that Sarfati is an expert on evolutionary biology, doing real research in the field based on his co-authorship of a paper on "Thermoelectric power and electron-phonon enhancement in YBa2Cu3O7-8", more than twenty years ago ?

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 37 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:23 AM PaulK has replied

  
Blzebub 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5231 days)
Posts: 129
Joined: 10-10-2009


Message 34 of 139 (535624)
11-17-2009 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by slevesque
11-16-2009 10:01 PM


there are no true scientists who know what they are talking about on the creationist side of the debate.
What's the difference between a "true scientist", and a "creationist"? Could it be that one has no agenda and seeks the truth?
Your choice of language betrays your argument.

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 39 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:28 AM Blzebub has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4631 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 35 of 139 (535626)
11-17-2009 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Coyote
11-16-2009 10:52 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Coyote, posted 11-16-2009 10:52 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Coyote, posted 11-17-2009 11:05 AM slevesque has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 36 of 139 (535627)
11-17-2009 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by slevesque
11-16-2009 9:49 PM


So, all of these suggest that the Earth, Universe, whatever is 6000-10,000 years old?
Yeah, well to believe that the Christian God created the earth 6000 years ago, and that Adam and Eve were historical People, etc. You pretty much have to be christian, don't you think ?
God? Where did I mention any gods? And who are these Adam and Eve? We're talking about your long list of scientists whom, having studied the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the Earth is 6000-10000 years old. I'm merely suggesting that if this were a valid conclusion based upon the evidence, we would see this conclusion evenly spread through the body of scientists, irrespective of religious belief. Do we?
'Only christian can believe in Young earth creationism'' to ''Therefore young-earth creationism is false'' is quite the jump of logic.
I don't believe I did this. Did I?
I would wish you had a little more interest in philosophy
You can philosophise all you like, but I am trying to get you to THINK.
Do you want me to list all the evangelical born-again Christian scientists I know personally (ranging from the ex-head of the UK space-program - don't laugh! - through cytogeneticists, doctors, chemists, physicists) who all think creationism is pure idiocy? My list would rival yours, and would be a hell of a lot more prestigious.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by slevesque, posted 11-16-2009 9:49 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:42 AM cavediver has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4631 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 37 of 139 (535628)
11-17-2009 3:23 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by PaulK
11-17-2009 2:10 AM


I used two adjectives in my sentence ''brilliant'' and ''qualified''. I was using Sarfati as an example of ''brilliant'' because, well he is. (Anyone else able of playing 12 people at chess while blindfolded. I sure can't ...) and John Sanford as an example of qualified (with his extensive resume of publishing. He was a geneticist who became creationist at age 50. Meaning he spent almost his whole career publishing about genetics from an evolutionnary point of view. I do think it makes him as knowledgeable as anyone in the domain about evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2009 2:10 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:26 AM slevesque has replied
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 11-17-2009 3:53 AM slevesque has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 38 of 139 (535629)
11-17-2009 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by slevesque
11-17-2009 3:23 AM


He was a geneticist who became creationist at age 50.
I'm assuming his switch to creationism came before any hint of his conversion to evangelical Christianity?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:23 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:32 AM cavediver has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4631 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 39 of 139 (535630)
11-17-2009 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Blzebub
11-17-2009 2:49 AM


I don't really know where you are going with this, but I did not make a difference between the two.
A creationist can be a true scientist who believe in a recent creation. Just as a Lamarckian can be a true scientist who believes in evolution in a Lamarckian manner. And an evolutionist a person who believes in evolution is a Neo-Darwinian manner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Blzebub, posted 11-17-2009 2:49 AM Blzebub has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Larni, posted 11-17-2009 5:12 AM slevesque has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4631 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 40 of 139 (535631)
11-17-2009 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by cavediver
11-17-2009 3:26 AM


Hey, as I've said. You can't be YEC without being christian. His conversion became before.
But this does not impact the fact that he did become a creationist. He could have very, very easily stayed a proponent of the ToE while being christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:26 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:37 AM slevesque has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3633 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 41 of 139 (535632)
11-17-2009 3:37 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by slevesque
11-17-2009 3:32 AM


Hey, as I've said. You can't be YEC without being christian.
Huh? You mean that you can't see the evidence that the Earth is only 6000-10000 years old unless you are a Christian. Does God have a special set of Paulian scales just waiting to fall from the eyes of all scientists the moment they accept Jesus into their lives? Curiously, they only seem to fall from the eyes of those scientists who convert in the presence of other creationists
But this does not impact the fact that he did become a creationist. He could have very, very easily stayed a proponent of the ToE while being christian.
Hmmm, do we know the leaning of those Christians and the church that surrounded him during his conversion? You don't think they themselves may have been creationist? Nah, probably has nothing to do with it

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:32 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:46 AM cavediver has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4631 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 42 of 139 (535633)
11-17-2009 3:42 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by cavediver
11-17-2009 3:22 AM


God? Where did I mention any gods? And who are these Adam and Eve? We're talking about your long list of scientists whom, having studied the evidence, have come to the conclusion that the Earth is 6000-10000 years old. I'm merely suggesting that if this were a valid conclusion based upon the evidence, we would see this conclusion evenly spread through the body of scientists, irrespective of religious belief. Do we?
The list were people who accept the biblical account of creation. Not just that the earth is 6000 years old.
The evidence rarely speaks for itself, and is always interpreted. No, you don't arrive at a recent creation by studying the evidence by itself. This does not mean it is therefore a false conclusion. The evidence can however be put up against the biblical account of creation, and see if there is a contradiction. FOr whatever reason that is not the subject here, these scientists think that the evidence fits well with this recent creation idea.
I don't believe I did this. Did I?
I don't recall you doing it in the post I was quoting, but I wrote this for two reasons: because by your text someone was bound to post some sort of similar reasoning. And because it was sounding rather implicit in the text, and in fact it sounds almost explicit in the previous text when you say '' I'm merely suggesting that if this were a valid conclusion based upon the evidence, we would see this conclusion evenly spread through the body of scientists, irrespective of religious belief. Do we?''
Do you want me to list all the evangelical born-again Christian scientists I know personally (ranging from the ex-head of the UK space-program - don't laugh! - through cytogeneticists, doctors, chemists, physicists) who all think creationism is pure idiocy? My list would rival yours, and would be a hell of a lot more prestigious.
Of course, this is not a name calling contest, and I'm pretty sure you would win. I was merely posting what I thought were legitimate scientist, who know what they are talking about, and yet are creationist (to the objections that no such thing existed)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:22 AM cavediver has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4631 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 43 of 139 (535635)
11-17-2009 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by cavediver
11-17-2009 3:37 AM


Huh? You mean that you can't see the evidence that the Earth is only 6000-10000 years old unless you are a Christian. Does God have a special set of Paulian scales just waiting to fall from the eyes of all scientists the moment they accept Jesus into their lives? Curiously, they only seem to fall from the eyes of those scientists who convert in the presence of other creationists
Well, no, obviously, you can't interpret the evidence in a biblical creation account framework without thinking this is the correct framework to interpret them with.
Hmmm, do we know the leaning of those Christians and the church that surrounded him during his conversion? You don't think they themselves may have been creationist? Nah, probably has nothing to do with it
He remained an evolutionist for some years after his conversion, then became a proponent of ID, then finally became a proponent of YECism. He was probably surrounded by evolutionists at work I guess ... don't know about his church ... (although it's a coin flip that it was a liberal church who accepted evolution)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by cavediver, posted 11-17-2009 3:37 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Huntard, posted 11-17-2009 4:34 AM slevesque has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 44 of 139 (535637)
11-17-2009 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by slevesque
11-17-2009 3:23 AM


And anyone who can read the context can see that you were using those two examples as "evidence" for this alleged creationist research of yours. But in neither case do you actually refer to any actual creationist research !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:23 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 4:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2285 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


(1)
Message 45 of 139 (535639)
11-17-2009 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by slevesque
11-17-2009 3:46 AM


slevesque writes:
Well, no, obviously, you can't interpret the evidence in a biblical creation account framework without thinking this is the correct framework to interpret them with.
So, you admit to confirmation bias for these scientists, something completely opposite to the scientific method?

I hunt for the truth
I am the one Orgasmatron, the outstretched grasping hand
My image is of agony, my servants rape the land
Obsequious and arrogant, clandestine and vain
Two thousand years of misery, of torture in my name
Hypocrisy made paramount, paranoia the law
My name is called religion, sadistic, sacred whore.
-Lyrics by Lemmy Kilmister of Motorhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 3:46 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by slevesque, posted 11-17-2009 4:54 PM Huntard has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024