|
Author
|
Topic: Books By Creationists?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
Message 4 of 142 (613287)
04-24-2011 1:56 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Tram law
04-24-2011 12:34 PM
|
|
Thomas Heinze has some online books. (I take the credit for that June, 2004 revison - I talked him into taking out the claim about the "vertical whale".)
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Tram law, posted 04-24-2011 12:34 PM | | Tram law has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 9 of 142 (613298)
04-24-2011 3:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 8 by slevesque
04-24-2011 2:42 PM
|
|
slevesque writes: And once again, if we take an example from another context, if I, as a scientists, would review scientific papers with the intention of debunking it even before reading it ? Why would it be dishonest in that case, but not in the other ?
"Dishonest" is the wrong word in both cases. Every book or paper you read, you should approach critically. It may be unwise to prejudge whether it's right or wrong but it isn't dishonest. You can only be dishonest about your conclusions after you've read it.
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 8 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 2:42 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 29 of 142 (613402)
04-25-2011 12:31 AM
|
Reply to: Message 10 by slevesque
04-24-2011 3:30 PM
|
|
slevesque writes: ... if I, as a scientist, would review a paper with the conscious intention of debunking it even before reading it, I would certainly consider it to be a lack of fairness, and therefore dishonest.
Fairness requires you to be willing to change your mind if the evidence demands it. It doesn't require you to have nothing in your mind to start with. It would be dishonest to pretend that you can go into such a situation completely free of bias.
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 10 by slevesque, posted 04-24-2011 3:30 PM | | slevesque has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 31 of 142 (613405)
04-25-2011 1:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 30 by slevesque
04-25-2011 1:11 AM
|
|
slevesque writes: The point of contention seems to be at what point do we effectively have an attitude that makes it practically impossible for the evidence to change our minds.
I don't think that's a point of contention at all. I don't think anybody has suggested any such attitude. That's the attitude that we constantly decry among creationists, not one that any science-minded person would advocate.
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 30 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:11 AM | | slevesque has replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 33 of 142 (613408)
04-25-2011 1:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 32 by slevesque
04-25-2011 1:49 AM
|
|
slevesque writes: Well isn't that the kind of attitude Tram Law is promoting in this thread, by saying we read a book with the a priori intention of debunking it (ie having already decided what our conclusion will be) ?
No.
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 32 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 1:49 AM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 53 of 142 (613466)
04-25-2011 3:12 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by slevesque
04-25-2011 3:03 PM
|
|
slevesque writes: It remains inconsistent to say that creationism isn't science because it is not falsifiable, and then say elsewhere that creationism has been shown to be false.
Two people have already addressed that point in the last few posts. 998 more and it becomes a PRATT.
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by slevesque, posted 04-25-2011 3:03 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 81 of 142 (613542)
04-26-2011 1:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by ZenMonkey
04-26-2011 1:05 AM
|
|
Zenmonkey writes: There was no way to account for it other than to believe that some sort of supernatural agency was responsible.
The same is true of any other discovery. Understanding fire doesn't require you to be an atheist either.
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by ZenMonkey, posted 04-26-2011 1:05 AM | | ZenMonkey has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 105 of 142 (613590)
04-26-2011 10:45 AM
|
Reply to: Message 103 by slevesque
04-26-2011 8:41 AM
|
|
Interpretations
slevesque writes: I do not deny reality. I deny how it is interpreted by others.
When Billy Graham goes to darkest Africa to convert the darkest Africans, he uses an interpreter. If he says, "Jesus died for our sins," the interpeter can't just say, "Some guy died," or, "My Studebaker has a flat tire." That would not be a valid interpretation. It would, in fact, be a denial of the reality of what Billy said. So no, you don't just get to re-interpret everything.
If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 103 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 8:41 AM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
Re: Evidence
slevesque writes: ... be careful not to mix denying the interpretation of the fact, with dening tha fact.
I'm disappointed that you missed my little story in Message 105.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 132 by slevesque, posted 04-26-2011 5:51 PM | | slevesque has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2