Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 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: 0/4


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


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

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 92 of 139 (536050)
11-19-2009 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by PaulK
11-19-2009 2:27 AM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Well global warming climate change is a subject on its own. But of course I would think that when a research like the GIEC claims there are 90% chance that humans are the cause, when in fact we still know very little about the causes of climate change, some scientists would like to point out how little we know about it.
In other words, the GIEC made an unfounded claim (90%) with not nearly enough information, and some scientists would probably want to publish how many factors come into play that we cannot yet calculate their effects, and so that the truth is we don't know the cause of the global warming, then I would guess they would have probably a harder time then others to get published.
One example is that even though water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas of all, but that it's effects can't yet be simulated by any software today (because, as it seems, weather is a complex thing), then I think it is legitimate to want to cast doubt on the 90% figure. But of course, they won't be published, since it is feeding on our lack of knowledge ...
AbE Yeah I know, way off-topic. You dont have to answer lol
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by PaulK, posted 11-19-2009 2:27 AM PaulK has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4630 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 93 of 139 (536052)
11-19-2009 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Coyote
11-19-2009 11:58 AM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Why are yo ualways agressive like that ?
I thought the study would have been interesting. You were saying how scientists disdain liying, and that it was so foreign to science. As if science was this great environment where lying cannot slip through, and if a scientist dared to lie, he was kicked out.
In the light of this, I think the study is totaly legitimate. 2% of scientists admitted to having ''fabricated, falsified, or modified data or results''. That is, they personnally admitted it. When they were asked about their colleagues actions resgarding falsification, the figure was now 14%.
And of course, they conclude that this is likely to be a conservative estimate.
Additionally, I gave you the probable cause for this. Peer-pressure: ''around 46 per cent [of scientists] say that they have observed fellow scientists engage inpresenting data selectively or changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure''.
THis is not a debate, this is a discussion. Be less aggressive, it'll be better for everyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2009 11:58 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Meldinoor, posted 11-20-2009 11:02 PM slevesque has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 139 (536055)
11-19-2009 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Perdition
11-19-2009 11:38 AM


Re: Atheist beliefs or atheist unbeliefs?
That's just to get the merit badge in Atheist Scouts.
Ah, right... *smacks forehead*

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Perdition, posted 11-19-2009 11:38 AM Perdition has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 139 (536056)
11-19-2009 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by onifre
11-19-2009 11:40 AM


Re: Atheist beliefs or atheist unbeliefs?
First rule about atheist club is: you don't talk about atheist club...
Wait, isn't that the second rule? Oh, wait... Same rule. *smacks forehead again*

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by onifre, posted 11-19-2009 11:40 AM onifre has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 96 of 139 (536061)
11-19-2009 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Arphy
11-18-2009 6:00 PM


Comments on the "debate"
It would be interesting if we started a separate thread using this "debate" as the basis. You, Slevesque and maybe someone else could take one side and others the other side (but to be fair it should be limited to an approximately equal number).
My current comments would be:
Both sides did a crappy job.
It is not a debate in that they seemed to have paid little attention to each other.
It doesn't get down to any details of the so-called facts at hand.
It is much, much too short to be anything like a real debate. (the necessity for significant length is only one reason why this can not be conducted on stage in front of an audience)
Anyone want to jump into a modified great debate? I'd enjoy a go at it.
Great debate (and as usual) a peanut gallery would work I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Arphy, posted 11-18-2009 6:00 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 8:32 PM NosyNed has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(3)
Message 97 of 139 (536066)
11-19-2009 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Arphy
11-18-2009 6:00 PM


It doesn't matter to the creationist how incredibly false his claims are, just so long as he deems that it sounds convincing.
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.
Rather, it should matter to the creationists, especially since their theology also includes the idea of God's Laws being absolute. And yet by their repeated and persistent actions it doesn't.
For example, in our email correspondence, Bill Morgan repeatedly lied to me, even to the point of switching which of us had said or done what; I had to keep a copy of all our emails and repeatedly had to show him what had actually been written. One example of him deliberately lying to the public can be found on his website at No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.fishdontwalk.com/aviewer.asp?i=7. It's an article that he wrote for his newsletter about the hole in the ozone layer being caused by chlorine released from refrigerant molecules high in the atmosphere. He raised a number of questions about how those molecules could have gotten there and what about other sources of chlorine and posed them to the "experts" -- air-conditioning salesmen at a trade show -- and since those "experts" couldn't answer his questions about atmospheric dynamics he concluded that nobody could answer them and that scientists don't know what they're talking about and were only assuming that there are refrigerant molecules up there causing the trouble. So I immediately Googled and within 15 minutes had the answers to all of his questions from a FAQ written by the real experts, the scientists at NOAA, and I presented it to him -- well, I had to present it twice because he at first tried to deny that those answers even existed. That FAQ even described how they had taken air samples from those high altitudes and showed the concentrations of refrigerants that they had directly and empirically measured. Knowing that he didn't have a leg to stand on, he dropped the subject and refused to discuss it. Then a few months later, he posted his article on his new website without any changes or corrections, even though he knew that it was false. Since he had made a deliberate choice to post it, that is a deliberate lie. And since he's gone through about 3 or 4 websites and has made the deliberate choice each time to post it on each of those websites, he has deliberately lied each time. I took him to task for it, especially when he insisted that "nothing is more important than the truth!", and the moment I would bring up his deliberate lie he would run away, knowing that he had yet again been caught in a lie.
{EDIT: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) FAQ that I had found has moved a couple times. It's currently at Error - File Not Found if anyone is curious. I used to have a much more detailed accounting on my website of this particular issue with Bill, but my web host pulled out of the business. }
Several times over the decades on forums, I would see a creationist make a standard false claim (eg, sea salt) and I would explain to that creationist what was wrong with that claim and why it was wrong, to the point where the creationist had to admit that the claim was wrong. Then a few months later I'd see that very same creationist use that very same false claim yet again against somebody, knowing full well that it was false. When I would bring up that fact, he would run away, caught yet again in a lie.
One on-line fundamentalist friend, Carl Drews, has a website where, among other things, he wrote a short autobiography (No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/mystory.html). Early on, he learned that creationist claims were a pack of lies. But then he and his wife found a great little fundamentalist church that they really liked, until the minister gave a "creation science" sermon and started a "creation science" class based on a series of videos by a creationist organization. He took notes and checked out the videos' claims and again found them to be false:
quote:
The ninth commandment makes no distinction between bearing false witness about Biblical and non-Biblical materials. It's extremely important to tell the truth about science, too.
I prepared a sheet of notes about what I had found that was wrong in each class, and made this available at the beginning of each next class. Only about a third of the other students even looked at my findings. During our short discussions there were some attempts to explain away the errors that I had found. These attempts were not researched very well, and usually I could point out that some creationist example like Paluxy River had been discredited years ago.
I wrote three detailed letters to the pastors during the long 12 weeks of the video class. They responded to my objections by saying that the speakers do a good job of preaching against evolution, and that the incorrect statements about science don't matter very much in that big picture. They contended without details that the errors I had cited were subjective. They refused to announce that some of the information presented was misleading or not accurate, and they also refused to exhort people to check out and verify the claims that were made. They urged me to continue the class.
. . .
We left that church. We left not because they conducted a video series attacking evolution, nor even because that series supported those attacks using incorrect information. We left because the church refused to announce that the class had flaws, declined to investigate the errors that were properly reported, and refused to urge people to get independent witness. The problem was not differing views. The problem was that they bore false witness. They lied.
His pastors told him that incorrect statements about science didn't matter? Most of the students in the class refused to even look at the truth? Elsewhere, I've heard from students of such classes described their motivation as being to gather ammo for street proselytizing. Yet again, the truth did not matter to them, only that they could learn some claims that would sound convincing. That is why a creationist claim that's been completely refuted continues to be used (eg, the leap-second claim which takes the slowing down of the earth's rotation and extrapolates back to an impossible rate of rotation hundreds of millions of years ago), because all creationists are interested in is that the claim sounds convincing and so might convince someone to convert or to support creationism's political agenda, etc. The truth does not matter to them. Nor, apparently, does breaking God's absolute Laws.
You know, for years I've wanted the answer to that, but every creationist I've asked has refused to answer it (starting with Bill Morgan). Why doesn't it matter to creationists that they're breaking God's laws by lying? Do they think that they're somehow exempt from "absolute moral standards"? Do they think there's a loophole which allows for the breaking of God's laws as long as they're doing it for Jesus -- ie, that those "absolute moral standards" are actually relative and that situational ethics is the way to go? That "lying for the Lord" is permissible in Christian doctrine? Or maybe that they'll just ask for forgiveness and God would forgive them for lying? -- that's the great thing about an invisible friend; he always agrees with you and forgives you.
Really, what are they thinking?
As a different subject, what compels an athiest to tell the truth and not lie?
Morality. We live in society too. Lying is a betrayal of trust and is harmful to our relationships with each other. Sure, we could choose to lie, but then we would have to live with the consequences, just like everybody else. The only difference is that atheists know that they must take responsibility for their actions whereas creationists believe that they don't have to take responsibility.
Edited by dwise1, : Added NOAA FAQ URL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Arphy, posted 11-18-2009 6:00 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 9:48 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 98 of 139 (536098)
11-19-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by NosyNed
11-19-2009 2:06 PM


Re: Comments on the "debate"
Yeah, i'd be keen for a great debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by NosyNed, posted 11-19-2009 2:06 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by NosyNed, posted 11-20-2009 6:05 PM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 99 of 139 (536101)
11-19-2009 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Coyote
11-18-2009 11:46 PM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Science is the exact opposite of lying and of unswerving belief in some particular dogma.
Perhaps, but are scientists?
Lies will be caught out
Unfortunatly, not always, also even if they are found out it is often too late to fully repair the damage that the lie has caused.
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.
of course I don't approve of it. The point is that human beings have showen themselves quite capable of doing so anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Coyote, posted 11-18-2009 11:46 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 11-19-2009 9:41 PM Arphy has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 100 of 139 (536104)
11-19-2009 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by onifre
11-19-2009 12:07 AM


what gives them any meaning at all is that we, by our own choosing, select them as good social skills.
So you have no problem with another group of people choosing a set of morals that might be in conflict with your morals?
Humans are social, and societies work best when there is order.
Great, what is wrong with anarchy? Does it really matter that civilisation and the earth remain for another 100 years? After you are dead you supposedly won't care anyway, because, well, you supposedly no longer exist. Why does society need to continue to exist even after you have died? You might think that it would be "neat", especially when thinking of all technological advances that humans could make in the future. But hey, you won't experince them anyway, if you're dead. There will probably be someone on the planet who thinks it would be "neat" if the world destroyed itself in a nuclear war tomorrow. Humans continue to try to keep an orderly society, but if atheism is true, then what is the point? Because it is "nice"?
Please note that I'm not suggesting that all atheists are anarchists or that if you are an atheist that you should consider becoming an anarchist, I'm just stating that there is nothing in atheism that would make it wrong for a person to do harm. There are no rules except the ones that you personally choose to make!!! These may be different and even conflicting from atheist to atheist. So what is wrong with an atheist choosing a rule that lying is ok if you don't get caught and it benefits you? Is it hypocritcal?
You need to in the same way you need to eat ... because there are consequences. Try not respecting people that you meet every day and see if you get along well; see if you don't need to be respectful to get along.
Firstly, you could always fake it when need be. You don't need to get along well with everyone. If you have some influence or power over a weaker opponent, you can become quite successful.
Coming back to my original post, I don't think it is possible to make the claim that atheists are "restricted" to telling the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by onifre, posted 11-19-2009 12:07 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by lyx2no, posted 11-20-2009 12:44 AM Arphy has replied
 Message 120 by Parasomnium, posted 11-20-2009 6:42 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 121 by Percy, posted 11-20-2009 7:37 AM Arphy has not replied
 Message 127 by onifre, posted 11-20-2009 12:56 PM Arphy has not replied
 Message 128 by Rahvin, posted 11-20-2009 2:09 PM Arphy has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5925
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 101 of 139 (536108)
11-19-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Arphy
11-19-2009 8:41 PM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Yes, scientists are quite human and all humans are capable of bad conduct. However, the community in which they operate sets the standards, standards which are needed for science's goals.
Basically, the primary goal of science is to learn all we can about the physical universe and to discover how it works. It's something of a massive team effort, with scientists doing their own research and reporting the results of that research.
Each scientist's research is based on the research of other scientists, just as each scientist's research will be the basis of other scientists' research. This means that the quality of those other scientists' research is very important to each scientist, because if the research that a scientist is basing his own research on is shoddy or falsified, then that endangers his own research. It is for that reason that all research is reviewed carefully and why any instance of dishonesty or shoddy work can spell the end of a career; the scientific community as a whole has to ensure the quality of the research that is its life-blood.
One practice that the community uses is duplication of results. When a new discovery is made, other scientists immediately duplicate the experiment in order to see whether they get the same results. For example, do you remember the discover of "cold fusion"? The instant one scientist got a copy of the paper, he FAX'd it to several other scientists and they all immediately read it and duplicated the experiment. And failed to get the same results, thus disproving "cold fusion".
Yes, a scientist could be tempted to lie and to create a hoax or otherwise falsify his research. And he might even get away with it for a short time. But under the intense scrutiny of the scientific community, that lie will be found out and the perpetrator will be dealt with.
Now, contrast the scientific community with the creationist community. The primary goal of the creationist community has nothing to do with learning the truth; they believe that it's been handed to them through the Bible. Rather, their primary goal is to kill evolution; from my quotes page (no longer up):
quote:
Paul Ellwanger, author of the "Balanced Treatment" model bill on which Arkansas Act 590 was based, from the closing of a letter written to Tom Bethell, which was admitted as evidence and cited by Judge Overton in his Decision of the Court:
"... -- the idea of killing evolution instead of playing these debating games that we've been playing for nigh over a decade already."
In order to work towards that goal, creationists try to find anything they can to discredit and refute evolution and other fields of science (such as geology, physics, and astronomy). Since the evidence supports evolution, they have to turn to dishonest means and create false claims. Since their goal requires them to convince the public to further their political agenda, those false claims must be convincing. Therefore, the more convincing-sounding a claim or argument is, the better it is in the eyes of the creationist community. It doesn't matter how false it is, just so long as it sounds really convincing. And even if a claim is proven to be false, if it sounds convincing then the creationist community will continue to use it unabated.
So if a creationist is caught in a lie, it will have absolutely no impact on his career -- just about the only thing that would kill his career would be a theological indiscretion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 8:41 PM Arphy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Arphy, posted 11-19-2009 10:21 PM dwise1 has replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 102 of 139 (536109)
11-19-2009 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by dwise1
11-19-2009 4:26 PM


Sorry, i'm not in a position to defend their actions. Firstly, i'm not familiar with the situations, 2nd, I don't think you can just pick a few examples and then conclude that all creationists lie all the time.
The first sentence of your reply is good, but then i disagree with your second sentence.
For some reason the "they are lying" tactic seems to be a common accusation against creationists yet rarely is it supported with any evidence.
Here is a reply to an accusation that i just read recently if anyone's interested.
Creationists are liars (?) - creation.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by dwise1, posted 11-19-2009 4:26 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2009 9:58 PM Arphy has 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

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 104 of 139 (536115)
11-19-2009 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by dwise1
11-19-2009 9:41 PM


Re: Lying for the lord?
Yes, there are many systems in place especially duplication which help in keeping standards. However, this doesn't mean that it is foolproof. Nor does it mean that it stops some results being promoted at the exclusion of others, for example. And as I said before, even if a scientist lies and he is found out, s/he may have already caused considerable damage, where their ideas persist even though it has been shown to be wrong.
The primary goal of the creationist community has nothing to do with learning the truth
You are coming at it from the angle that truth is unknowable. We KNOW that the bible is true, therefore we trust it, and we gain more confirmation of this every day as more scientific discoveries, historical corroboration, and supernatural experiences show that the bible is trustworthy. So, yes, we continue to work at bringing down the "evidences" for evolution, because many people feel that it has been "proven" that evolution is true, and find it hard to let go of the "mountains of evidence". If we can destroy the "mountain" with good science and logic, well....
As for just using "convincing-sounding" arguments for the sake of sounding convincing is also wrong, as far as i am aware. Feel free to convince me otherwise, this is the place to do so. The arguments sound convincing because they are convincing!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by dwise1, posted 11-19-2009 9:41 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by dwise1, posted 11-20-2009 4:35 AM Arphy has not replied

  
Arphy
Member (Idle past 4423 days)
Posts: 185
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-23-2009


Message 105 of 139 (536118)
11-19-2009 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Coyote
11-19-2009 9:58 PM


Re: More creationist pap
Sorry to have to tell you this, but that's typical creationist pap.
Thanks, for doing so anyway.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2009 9:58 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Coyote, posted 11-19-2009 11:50 PM Arphy 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