Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8789 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-22-2017 6:20 PM
352 online now:
Coragyps, Coyote, halibut, JonF, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx, xongsmith (7 members, 345 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Post Volume:
Total: 819,308 Year: 23,914/21,208 Month: 1,879/2,468 Week: 388/822 Day: 48/66 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
jar
Member
Posts: 29363
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 166 of 186 (810094)
05-23-2017 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Phat
05-23-2017 11:54 AM


Re: In Light Of Recent Discussions
Phat writes:

If as claimed the Bible is used as a source, should it simply be allowed to be accepted as a valid source or does it require some sort of standard (apart from Jesus Christ Himself)

Sorry but the "apart from Jesus Christ Himself" is certainly not evidence of anything.

The Bible stories like any stories can be accepted as evidence that at some time someone wrote what the stories contain, but that is about the only weight the Bible should be given.

Phat writes:

Must Faith have evidence?

No, Faith never has evidence. If there is evidence no faith is required.

Phat writes:

Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged?

It's perfectly normal for folk to get angry when their beliefs are challenged. What is important is whether they get angry at the challenger or themselves? It is only when they get angry with themselves, when they stop and seriously critically examine their beliefs that growth is possible.

Phat writes:

For the YEC, I ask if there should be a different definition as to what science is apart from critical thinking and the scientific method.

No, that is simply silly. If there is a different definition then it is NOT science.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 11:54 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13639
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 167 of 186 (810095)
05-23-2017 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Phat
05-23-2017 11:58 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Phat writes:

Believers are passionate about their source....


Believers are passionate about their sourceS, plural. There's the Bible, the Qur'an, the Vedas, etc. How do you compare one source with another if you throw science out the window?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 11:58 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 05-28-2017 6:18 PM ringo has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(2)
Message 168 of 186 (810100)
05-23-2017 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Phat
05-23-2017 11:54 AM


Re: In Light Of Recent Discussions
Phat writes:

For the YEC, I ask if there should be a different definition as to what science is apart from critical thinking and the scientific method.

The user "Faith" has rather transparent reasons for wanting to change the rules of science, and those reasons are that Faith can't win a debate if we use the rules of science that have been around for the last 200 years.

We are told that it is "unfair" if YEC's have to follow the rules of science or the scientific method. Of course, the truth is just the opposite.

To help illustrate this point, let's look at my out-of-luck Seattle Mariners (an American baseball team for those outside of the US). They are below 0.500, and kind of stink this year. If I were to use the YEC definition of fair, then the Seattle Mariners should be allowed to change the rules when they are at bat. They should get 10 outs and 8 strikes per at bat so that they can win. Afterall, if they can't win then it isn't fair, according to YEC's. Right?

What YEC's can't seem to understand is that changing the rules is completely UNFAIR. We define cheating as those who try to change or circumvent the rules so they can win. It is YEC's who want the mantle of science in order to make their beliefs look believable. If they want to earn that mantle, then they have to follow the rules.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 11:54 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13122
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 169 of 186 (810102)
05-23-2017 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Phat
05-23-2017 12:01 PM


Re: At The End Of The Day...
quote:

Our argument is that belief needs to be respected rather than simply dismissed without evidence

That depends on what you mean by respect. And the beliefs. And what you mean by "simply dismissed without evidence". Certainly the absence of evidence is not a reason for anyone else to accept a belief. In fact I would go further. Given the ridiculously large number of possibilities that can be made to fit the evidence it seems to be necessary to discard a great number of those possibilities without evidence. Evidence is required for belief far more than for disbelief.

But all too often believers object to people who prefer to follow the evidence. Some believers are honest enough to accept this. Other believers are not at all honest. And I do not accept that dishonesty and deception deserve respect.

quote:

Your argument is that science by definition rejects and dismisses a myriad of things on a regular basis

As it must do, although most of them are never formulated.

But I think the most important thing to point out is that there is a huge difference between dismissing a belief and pointing out that it is not scientific. YECs would do better to honestly embrace the fact that their beliefs are contrary to science rather than falsely insisting otherwise, no matter what advantage they hope to gain.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 12:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 170 of 186 (810118)
05-23-2017 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Phat
05-23-2017 12:01 PM


Re: At The End Of The Day...
Phat writes:

Our argument is that belief needs to be respected rather than simply dismissed without evidence.

I respect the right of someone to believe as they wish, but that doesn't equate to a respect for the belief itself. Without evidence, beliefs should be simply dismissed. How else are we going to find the truth of the world if we are busy holding a nearly infinite number of contradictory beliefs in our head?

Your argument is that science by definition rejects and dismisses a myriad of things on a regular basis.

Yes. Why is that a problem?

If you still want to believe in something that science does not accept, then that is certainly your right.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 12:01 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5063
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 171 of 186 (810131)
05-24-2017 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Phat
05-23-2017 11:58 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Phat writes:

The critics will claim that in order for any claim to be scientific it has to be verified through the scientific method.

It's not a claim - it's a necessary fact. In order for a petrol engine to work it needs petrol. The scientific method is what it is - it can't be something else just because believers in irrational systems wish it was different.

Believers are passionate about their source, though it is technically unverifiable without belief. I know. I am one of them.

You'll just have to accept that your belief is what it is. It ain't scientific or rational and it never can be. (It's also wrong, but that's another issue.)


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 11:58 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9921
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 172 of 186 (810169)
05-24-2017 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Phat
05-23-2017 11:54 AM


Re: In Light Of Recent Discussions
For the YEC, I ask if there should be a different definition as to what science is apart from critical thinking and the scientific method.

What would you propose?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Phat, posted 05-23-2017 11:54 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 173 of 186 (810309)
05-27-2017 6:39 PM


Faith in science wins, faith in facts and the real world even if unseen, whether micro or macro wins.

Faith and Science are not two different entities as suggested by this topic or TITLE. Its a poorly worded title and irrational and illogical topic title.

Evolutionists faith in their bones and imaginations is as bad as church peoples faith in something they have never tested out or tried.

True faith and true science is when you try and test out theories and find out if they work.

Mystery solved...


Evolutionists are brainless whoosies, gutless and cowards.
They are not scientists, but religionists that choose to deny facts and truths of science. Intelligence and design always defeats their lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is a losers doctrine, simply because they are either lazy or dishonest.

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-28-2017 12:37 AM Davidjay has responded
 Message 176 by ringo, posted 05-28-2017 2:29 PM Davidjay has responded

    
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 1578
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 6.1


(2)
Message 174 of 186 (810334)
05-28-2017 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Davidjay
05-27-2017 6:39 PM


Davidjay writes:

Faith in science wins, faith in facts and the real world even if unseen, whether micro or macro wins.
Faith and Science are not two different entities as suggested by this topic or TITLE. Its a poorly worded title and irrational and illogical topic title.

The irony, it burns.


What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python

One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie

If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq


This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Davidjay, posted 05-27-2017 6:39 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by Davidjay, posted 05-28-2017 9:16 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 175 of 186 (810347)
05-28-2017 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by Tanypteryx
05-28-2017 12:37 AM


Creationism is logical and scientific
No irony at all. Its consistent and logical.

The Lord of ALL created all, and as the Creator created all science and all laws. He didnt just create biology, but all sciences and math, physics, chemistry etc.... all things and all laws binding them together. All as in ALL.

(SEE thread on Laws did not evolve)

The more you study in science the more you see the intelligent design of what was created.

The more you see and read and know the more FAITH you get in facts and correspondances and the reral world as well as the unseen scientific world.

Logical and rational.


Evolutionists are brainless whoosies, gutless and cowards.
They are not scientists, but religionists that choose to deny facts and truths of science. Intelligence and design always defeats their lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is a losers doctrine, simply because they are either lazy or dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Tanypteryx, posted 05-28-2017 12:37 AM Tanypteryx has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13639
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 176 of 186 (810369)
05-28-2017 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Davidjay
05-27-2017 6:39 PM


Davidjay writes:

True faith and true science is when you try and test out theories and find out if they work.


So how do you test creationism?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Davidjay, posted 05-27-2017 6:39 PM Davidjay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Davidjay, posted 05-29-2017 10:50 AM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9757
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 177 of 186 (810374)
05-28-2017 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by ringo
05-23-2017 12:06 PM


Re: Topic Remix
How do you compare one source with another if you throw science out the window?
Because "science" is not the only way that we make choices.

Not everything in life is evident.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by ringo, posted 05-23-2017 12:06 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 05-29-2017 11:45 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 181 by Taq, posted 05-30-2017 11:20 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Davidjay 
Suspended Member
Posts: 1026
From: B.C Canada
Joined: 11-05-2004


Message 178 of 186 (810414)
05-29-2017 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by ringo
05-28-2017 2:29 PM


So how do you test creationism?

Ringo, we have been over this many times in many other threads.

Evolution has not been tested and can not be tested, and has no factual evidence. Creation is, and the facts of science, observation, geology, history, biology, chemistry, and the laws of nature or the laws of the Universe prove it.

Similiarly as previously written, the spiritual world can be tested and proven scientifically, as well as the existence of spiritual beings like Jesus.

Must I rewrite everything for you.

No wonder I started a website with 1300 articles so I wouldnt have to rewrite everything for every Ringo that came along.

SEE other threads HERE...


Evolution is not science. It did not create life nor did it diversify life. It didn;t create the laws that exist nor did it create science. It is a religion and not Science.

Intelligent design always defeats evolutions lack of design and lack of intelligence. Luck and Chance is not a scientific doctrine,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ringo, posted 05-28-2017 2:29 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by ringo, posted 05-29-2017 11:47 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13639
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 179 of 186 (810430)
05-29-2017 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Phat
05-28-2017 6:18 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Phat writes:

Because "science" is not the only way that we make choices.
Not everything in life is evident.


That doesn't answer the question. How do you compare one source with another if you throw science out the window?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Phat, posted 05-28-2017 6:18 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13639
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 180 of 186 (810431)
05-29-2017 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Davidjay
05-29-2017 10:50 AM


Davidjay writes:

Must I rewrite everything for you.


Yes. Answer the question: HOW do you test creationism?

List the experiments done and the results.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Davidjay, posted 05-29-2017 10:50 AM Davidjay has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
891011
12
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017