Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2017 11:49 PM
325 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Pressie, ringo (6 members, 319 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,043 Year: 28,649/21,208 Month: 715/1,847 Week: 90/475 Day: 37/53 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
17Next
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 136 of 252 (814623)
07-11-2017 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Faith
07-10-2017 5:02 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

Not at all anti-science.

Are you sure?

Faith writes:

Better to be at odds with all the scientific world than deny or try to rationalize away what we truly believe to be what God has revealed.

Because that sounds rather anti-science to me.

You may be 'right' or 'true' or 'valid' or 'reality' or whatever.
I don't think you are, but that's not the point.

The point was that Creationism is anti-science.
And you seem to agree with that... except for when you explicitly deny it.

But the sciences of the prehistoric past are the problem since none of the past can be subjected to testing, being all one-time events that can only be interpreted.

All science is 'science of the past.' There's no other kind. All 'science of the past' helps us make predictions of the future. But there's no such thing as 'science of the future.' It's all about studying the past. Studying what happened in reality to see if we can make helpful predictions.

I've seen Old Earth Geology and Evolutionary Biology overturned time and time again by creationist arguments including my own, but because there is no way to test the sciences of the past it's the biases of the status quo that prevail no matter what.

Science accepts and incorporates the Biblical testimony.
It tested Geology based on Flood-Geology Biblical ideas. No one found any oil faster than anyone else.
It then tested Geology based on science-of-the-prehistoric-past. Anyone doing that found oil faster and better than anyone else.

You can call that whatever you'd like.
But it seems to me that this indicates that science gets closer to reality while Biblical testimony was... not very helpful.

You've spun a lot of talk here with the apparent intention of circumventing the claim that the Bible IS knowledge.

The Bible is not knowledge.

We assumed it to be knowledge based on it being the Bible.
We tested it.
It failed to accurately represent reality.
We made no progress.
So it was incorporated as 'human fallibility.'
And science moved on to actual knowledge of the actual world and things started to represent reality really well.
We made progress.

If the Bible is knowledge, it is useless, incorrect knowledge that should be placed aside and not used to make accurate predictions of reality.

You might as well just deny it outright as most here do.

Why deny it?
Why not accept it, test it, and use it for whatever it can be used for?

That's what we did.
And it turns out it can't be used to accurately predict reality.
It can, however, be used to provide solace to some people who seek a certain kind of peace.
So that's what it's used for. Not all people, but some for sure.

God's word is meant to be believed spiritually, it can't be tested by physical scientific means, though it certainly speaks on physical realities.

Still sounds anti-science to me. Regardless of it being usable or truthful or anything else.

You either recognize it or you don't. Since science doesn't recognize it

Science recognizes it, incorporates it, tests it, and uses it.
It's just didn't pass the mustard, that's all.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 5:02 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 137 of 252 (814624)
07-11-2017 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by CRR
07-11-2017 5:40 AM


But was he a creationist in the sense of our discussion? Was he also a YEC who denied real-world evidence in order to promote a narrow and false theology in order to proselytize and to try to have laws passed for that narrow and false theology to be taught in school as science?

There is no inherent conflict between science and religion unless you misuse either or both.

There is no inherent conflict between creation and evolution unless you misrepresent and misuse either or both.

You seem to think otherwise. You seem to equate evolution with atheism, evidence by your calling talkorigins an atheist site. You are a YEC and equating your "evolution model" with atheism is an article of faith.

So if you truly think that Faraday was a modern-day YEC-type creationist, then please present the evidence. Or admit that Faraday has nothing to do with the discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by CRR, posted 07-11-2017 5:40 AM CRR has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3044
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 138 of 252 (814628)
07-11-2017 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by CRR
07-11-2017 6:09 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
CRR writes:

However we can't agree on a definition of the Theory of Evolution so it's unlikely the broader subject of science will fare better.

A very good point.

Broad subjects are extremely difficult to condense into a single sentence that can govern all aspects.
As you say, this should be used as a 'starting point' into the proper investigation and understanding. Not as some sort of challenge to force an elephant into a thimble.

But why does science work? According to C.S. Lewis: Science began with belief in a Lawmaker

C.S. Lewis may or may not be correct in how Science began.

But that has nothing to do with your question - why does science work?

Science works because it makes progress in getting closer and closer to reality.
Science depends on objective observations - that is, what anyone and everyone can test and verify.
Science glorifies finding an error and coming up with a better, newer solution. Noble prizes were created to acknowledge such achievements.
Science incorporates techniques that reduce any reliance on "alternative motives" that people can sometimes fall victim to.
Science is not one person anywhere. One person only comes up with an idea. Other people must also be able to verify the same idea. Many times these 'other people' are from different countries and cultures. This ensures that "personal bias" is weeded out and all we're left with is the correct solution.
Science is self-correcting. Even if there is an error made by one person (on purpose or by accident) others doing the same testing... the verification... will find that error and account for it.
Science works because it doesn't have an end. There is not "finished" science. There is always testing, re-testing, and finer tuning to be made.
Science works because it continually changes, continually making progress, continually building knowledge.

Science working has nothing to do with C.S. Lewis.
It has nothing to do with Charles Darwin.
It has nothing to do with a Legislator or Creator or God.
It has nothing to do with any specific person or being.
Science works because it never stops asking "why?" and it will only accept honest, real answers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by CRR, posted 07-11-2017 6:09 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Coyote, posted 07-11-2017 11:12 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6037
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 139 of 252 (814629)
07-11-2017 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Stile
07-11-2017 11:04 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Science works because it never stops asking "why?" and it will only accept honest, real answers.

And that is why creationists are so often anti-science--they can't accept some of those honest, real answers.

Such as a very old earth and no global flood during historic times.

The gyrations they go through to ignore, misrepresent and otherwise trash the scientific evidence in these two example are amazing to watch. And very telling.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.

Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other points of view--William F. Buckley Jr.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Stile, posted 07-11-2017 11:04 AM Stile has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7272
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


Message 140 of 252 (814633)
07-11-2017 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
07-10-2017 6:33 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

Sorry, the Bible was written by human beings UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

So claims a fallen human. You still have nothing according to your own criteria.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 6:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 141 of 252 (814634)
07-11-2017 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Faith
07-10-2017 6:33 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

Sorry, the Bible was written by human beings UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. That's what makes it God's word.


And your understanding of it is still filtered by your "fallen" intellect.

You can't have it both ways. No matter how TRUE the Bible is, your discernment of its truth is no better than anybody else's.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 6:33 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 12:00 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13965
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 142 of 252 (814639)
07-11-2017 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by CRR
07-11-2017 5:40 AM


CCR writes:

Michael Faraday


Now show us where faraday rejected evolution.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by CRR, posted 07-11-2017 5:40 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 578
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016


Message 143 of 252 (814710)
07-12-2017 1:20 AM


Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell
Michael Faraday
Even though Darwin published his work on evolution near the end of Faraday’s life, several very good reasons exist to conclude that Faraday rejected Darwinism. In 1859 Darwin published his book The Origin of Species, which many have seen as undermining such a confident faith. The remarkable thing is that Faraday says nothing about evolution that implies any kind of unresolvable problem. Though by now his physical condition was deteriorating, he could think clearly for much of his time and express himself eloquently where that was necessary. His silence on Darwin’s work is highly significant. Like many physical scientists, he may have dismissed evolution as “only a theory.” More probably his faith was so strong that nothing, even in science, could shake it (Russell, 2000, p. 115).

Actually, Faraday said much about his religious beliefs, and Darwinism was directly contrary to his core beliefs, a fact that Faraday was no doubt keenly aware of. As one who interpreted the Bible as literally as possible, many students of science conclude that Faraday could not accept Darwinism. The teachings of his small fundamentalist church included a strong emphasis on God’s creation as
purposeful and harmonious, designed for man’s well-being. He had an abiding faith in the Bible and in prayer. Unlike Newton, however, he made little attempt to “harmonize” his science with his Biblical faith, supremely confident that the two were both based on divine truth and were necessarily in agreement. … He fully believed in the official doctrine of his church, which said: “The Bible, and it alone, with nothing added to it nor taken away from it by man, is the sole and sufficient guide for each individual, at all times and in all circumstances (Morris, Henry. 1988. Men of Science Men of God: Great Scientists Who Believed the Bible. Master Books. p. 37).
http://www.create.ab.ca/...l-faraday-christian-and-scientist

James Clerk Maxwell
Maxwell was widely read in theology. He interacted with many of the best theological minds of his day, always as a solid evangelical Christian. In fact, he often chided other believers for tying religious truth too tightly to the science of the day. He understood this not as a problem for God’s unchanging Word, but as a problem for man’s ever changing understanding of how the world works.

Maxwell’s faith in the Bible even shocked a young Karl Pearson who, when he questioned the Flood, was reprimanded by Maxwell for questioning the Bible!

“The conversation turned on Darwinian evolution; I can’t say how it came about, but I spoke disrespectfully of Noah’s Flood. Clerk Maxwell was instantly aroused to the highest pitch of anger, reproving me for want of faith in the Bible! I had no idea at the time that he had retained the rigid faith of his childhood, and was, if possible, a firmer believer than Gladstone in the accuracy of Genesis.”
http://creation.com/einsteins-heroes


Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by JonF, posted 07-12-2017 5:49 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3998
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 144 of 252 (814713)
07-12-2017 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by CRR
07-12-2017 1:20 AM


Re: Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell
Cool.

Did they use the Bible in their experiments and theories or did they use purely known physical principles and methods?

if yes, please cite where they did so.

If not, they were not creationists in the modern sense.

(Are you aware of Maxwell's work on the age of the Earth? He was no YEC).

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Edited by JonF, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by CRR, posted 07-12-2017 1:20 AM CRR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by dwise1, posted 07-12-2017 10:35 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 3028
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 145 of 252 (814717)
07-12-2017 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by JonF
07-12-2017 5:49 AM


Re: Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell
Yeah, those creationist "scientists who were creationists" lists are so stupid that they're just tiring.

Those lists are kind of along the lines of the arguments that strain all logic to arrive at a conclusion that there must be a god, at which point suddenly that indistinct "a god" becomes their specific god accompanied by their entire intricately detailed theology. How blazingly stupid!

Just because a scientist was Christian doesn't mean he followed creationists' particular narrow theology. Did they ever bother to ask him to be associated with them and their false theology?

Edited by dwise1, : Replaced impersonal "you" with "they" for clarity sake


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by JonF, posted 07-12-2017 5:49 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26702
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 146 of 252 (814728)
07-12-2017 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by ringo
07-11-2017 11:58 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

Sorry, the Bible was written by human beings UNDER THE INSPIRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. That's what makes it God's word.

And your understanding of it is still filtered by your "fallen" intellect.
You can't have it both ways. No matter how TRUE™ the Bible is, your discernment of its truth is no better than anybody else's.

Sorry, you are wrong. As I keep saying, the ability to believe the Bible is the word of God is a supernatural gift from God that overrides the fallen intellect. The Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and the ability to discern this is given to those who believe in it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by ringo, posted 07-11-2017 11:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 07-12-2017 12:43 PM Faith has responded
 Message 153 by Taq, posted 07-12-2017 1:18 PM Faith has responded
 Message 157 by ringo, posted 07-12-2017 3:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13365
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 147 of 252 (814736)
07-12-2017 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Faith
07-12-2017 12:00 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
It doesn't matter since your definition game is crucial to your argument and has already failed (apparently your "discernment" failed to notice the obvious there)

But:

quote:

Sorry, you are wrong. As I keep saying, the ability to believe the Bible is the word of God is a supernatural gift from God that overrides the fallen intellect.

Is there any sensible reason to believe this ? Or is it just another product of a "fallen" intellect ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 12:00 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 12:51 PM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26702
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 148 of 252 (814737)
07-12-2017 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by PaulK
07-12-2017 12:43 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
The sensible reason to believe it is that it would benefit you greatly if you did. But since you don't have the gift of discernment I guess you can just go on refusing to believe it and forego the benefit. Your choice.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 07-12-2017 12:43 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by JonF, posted 07-12-2017 12:57 PM Faith has responded
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 07-12-2017 1:03 PM Faith has responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3998
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 149 of 252 (814738)
07-12-2017 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
07-12-2017 12:51 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Pascal's wager.

The problem is who provides the benefit? Wotan? Zeus?

You think you know the answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 12:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 07-12-2017 1:00 PM JonF has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 26702
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 150 of 252 (814739)
07-12-2017 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by JonF
07-12-2017 12:57 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
I do know the answer.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by JonF, posted 07-12-2017 12:57 PM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by JonF, posted 07-12-2017 3:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
89
10
1112
...
17Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017