Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8802 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-19-2017 12:50 PM
322 online now:
Coyote, DrJones*, dwise1, jar, Modulous (AdminModulous), Phat (AdminPhat), xongsmith (7 members, 315 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,666 Year: 27,272/21,208 Month: 1,185/1,714 Week: 28/365 Day: 28/40 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
17Next
Author Topic:   Micro v. Macro Creationist Challenge
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13303
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 121 of 252 (814589)
07-11-2017 3:13 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
07-11-2017 2:55 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
quote:

Since you are unable to recognize an obvious misreading and obviously misread it yourself, end of subject.

Since I can prove my case and you can't you lose. And I'll defend that any time. A Great Debate thread if you wish.

quote:

You have to desire salvation from the heart, ask for it with some persevering sincerity and be willing to accept some things that right now you don't accept (I had to accept lots of things that as a former liberal I thought I could never accept), all sorts of tests of that necessary sincerity, though God does help us with lingering unbelief if we ask for that too with the same sincerity.

In other words you lied and I called your bluff. It's funny how "Christians" try to make it sound so easy while hiding a whole lot of other conditions.

Remember what you said:


But you are welcome to join us any time by simply asking God to save you

In fact I can't seriously want something that makes no sense to me, nor can I say that I will automatically accept any beliefs you choose to tell me are essential. So I guess that your hidden conditions make it far from "simple".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 07-11-2017 2:55 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 07-11-2017 3:43 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26592
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 122 of 252 (814590)
07-11-2017 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by PaulK
07-11-2017 3:13 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Yes, well, one would think a person would know you can't ask God for something in such a cavalier way, but OK I wasn't specific enough and you can use the occasion to be right about something it would be better not to be right about.

No I wouldn't debate you on the meaning of the Bible.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2017 3:13 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2017 3:58 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13303
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 123 of 252 (814592)
07-11-2017 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
07-11-2017 3:43 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.

Yes, well, one would think a person would know you can't ask God for something in such a cavalier way, but OK I wasn't specific enough and you can use the occasion to be right about something it would be better not to be right about.

In fact I did realise that you were lying. And what is it that it "would be better not to be right about" ? And why ?

quote:

No I wouldn't debate you on the meaning of the Bible.

In other words I am willing to back my claim up - and you are not.

Maybe you realise that misrepresenting a pathetically bad commentary is not exactly a good argument. Or maybe I am expecting too much of you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 07-11-2017 3:43 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 07-11-2017 4:23 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26592
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 124 of 252 (814593)
07-11-2017 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by PaulK
07-11-2017 3:58 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
I'm sure it's a good thing that I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Enjoy your snark for whatever it's worth.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2017 3:58 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2017 4:45 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13303
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 125 of 252 (814595)
07-11-2017 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
07-11-2017 4:23 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
quote:

I'm sure it's a good thing that I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Certainly you don't like it when your ridiculous errors get brought to light.

But enough of that. Your attempt to deny that you are anti-science based on definition games and false pride in your own beliefs has failed. As anyone with any sense would expect. And that really is an end to that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 07-11-2017 4:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 07-11-2017 5:02 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26592
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 126 of 252 (814596)
07-11-2017 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by PaulK
07-11-2017 4:45 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
I shall try to savor your lies.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2017 4:45 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2017 5:07 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13303
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 127 of 252 (814597)
07-11-2017 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Faith
07-11-2017 5:02 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
What lies ?

I guess you mean - as usual - truths you don't like.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Faith, posted 07-11-2017 5:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 07-11-2017 5:09 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 26592
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 128 of 252 (814598)
07-11-2017 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 127 by PaulK
07-11-2017 5:07 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
And that one too,
This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2017 5:07 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by PaulK, posted 07-11-2017 5:28 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5153
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 129 of 252 (814599)
07-11-2017 5:12 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
07-11-2017 3:03 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Faith writes:

God gives the knowledge in this case, there is no need for the methods of fallen intellect.

Actually, the truth is exactly the opposite - we've proven that religious beliefs can not reliably inform us of anything to do with the natural world and, when it tries, it's always wrong - from planetary movements, to medical conditions, to the age of the earth.

Just flat out, in your face wrong.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.

"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 120 by Faith, posted 07-11-2017 3:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13303
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 130 of 252 (814601)
07-11-2017 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
07-11-2017 5:09 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Again there is no lie.

But since you insist on refusing to shut up let us look at what a modern online dictionary says that "science' means:

dictionary,com


1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

When we describe you as anti-science we usually refer to the second meaning, although the third could equally well apply. And yet your argument refuses to even accept that those definitions exist.

So yes, you are playing a definition game by ignoring definitions that are much more common and more applicable before we even get into the question of whether your belief counts as knowledge.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 07-11-2017 5:09 AM Faith has not yet responded

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


Message 131 of 252 (814602)
07-11-2017 5:40 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by JonF
07-10-2017 8:37 AM


I don't see any evidence that those people are creationists.

Well let's just pick one. You can investigate the others yourself, beginning with the link I gave.

Michael Faraday
In 1821, Faraday was accepted as a member of the Royal Society—the professional body where the foremost scientists exchanged discoveries and ideas.

In a book on Faraday and electricity, Brian Bowers writes that ‘it seems likely that his religious belief in a single Creator encouraged his scientific belief in the “unity of forces”, the idea that magnetism, electricity and the other forces have a common origin.

When Faraday retired from the Royal Institution after almost 50 years, he thanked those who had worked with him during those years. However, he was careful to ‘Thank God, first, for all his gifts’.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by JonF, posted 07-10-2017 8:37 AM JonF has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by JonF, posted 07-11-2017 8:07 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 137 by dwise1, posted 07-11-2017 9:00 AM CRR has not yet responded
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 07-11-2017 12:02 PM CRR has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 132 of 252 (814603)
07-11-2017 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Faith
07-10-2017 4:10 AM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
"Science" simply means "knowledge,"

It's a bit more than just knowledge. Consider these five possible definitions:-
(1) Science is nothing else than the search to discover unity in the wild variety of nature (J. Bronowski).
(2) The business of science is to find uniformities, such as the laws of motion and the law of gravitation, to which, so far as our experience extends, there are no exceptions (B. Russell).
(3) Falsifiability is the criterion of demarcation between science and non-science (K. Popper).
(4) What is science? At its core, science is observation. . . . science is empiricism (D. Breese).
(5) Science involves observation, using one or more of our five senses, to gain cumulative knowledge about the world and to be able to repeat the observations (K. Ham).

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. For a start we would have to differentiate between Origins vs Operational science.

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

‘Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared—the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.’

Lewis, C.S., Miracles: a preliminary study, Collins, London, p. 110, 1947.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 4:10 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Stile, posted 07-11-2017 11:04 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 133 of 252 (814615)
07-11-2017 8:05 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
07-10-2017 9:31 PM


Re: Science means knowledge, period.
Doesn't work that way. God does it all or it's not valid. You can't believe the Bible is God's word unless He causes you to believe it.

That's your fallible interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Faith, posted 07-10-2017 9:31 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 3992
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 134 of 252 (814616)
07-11-2017 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by CRR
07-11-2017 5:40 AM


His religion may have encouraged him but he did not use religion in the actual scientific investigations.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by CRR, posted 07-11-2017 5:40 AM CRR has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 135 of 252 (814622)
07-11-2017 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by JonF
07-10-2017 8:37 AM


CRR writes:

Professor Dr Bernard Brandstater, Prof. Stuart Burgess, Professor Dr Ben Carson, Dr Raymond Damadian, Dr John Hartnett, Dr Raymond Jones, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, Dr John Sanford, Dr Wally (Siang Hwa) Tow

I don't see any evidence that those people are creationists.

You would need to research into the biographies and writings of each and every person in that list in order to make that determination. Since CRR presented that list and claimed them all to be creationists, it is incumbent on CRR to provide that information.

I do know that plant geneticist Dr. John Sanford is and IDist and a YEC. The only reason I know that is that a local creationist cited him in a debate as a scientific source, making sure to repeatedly point to his PhD, without making even a single mention that he was also a YEC. He did the same thing with another PhD with absolutely no mention that she's a professional creationist and spokesperson for AiG. IOW, that creationist was deliberately lying to the audience.

You should have recognized Dr. Ben Carson, the one who believes that the pyramids were built to store grain and now heads HUD, a post for which he is ill suited.

CRR writes:

Not to mention all past scientists such as Faraday and Maxwell.

Yeah, not to mention. Scientists who were unaware of the ToE or did not attempt to use Biblical-based creationism in their scientific work were not creationists in the modern sense.

Excellent point. One that CRR completely ignored in his reply, Message 131.

So what's his point?

ABE:
Though the story of Dr. John Sanford raises a pertinent question. A person can be both religious, deeply religious even, and a scientist with no problem, just so long as he actually does science when serving as a scientist. That may require some compartmentalization. Certainly there is no problem with pursuing science motivated strongly by one's religious beliefs, but there is a problem with having religious motivation to subvert science.

So the question is whether being a creationist in the modern sense would interfere with one's ability to do science, to make significant scientific contributions.

In the Wikipedia article on Sanford he is described:

quote:
Formerly an atheist[18] from the mid-1980s, Sanford has looked into theistic evolution (1985–late 1990s), Old Earth creationism (late 1990s), and Young Earth creationism (2000–present).

Reviewing his significant work and accomplishments, they are all in the 1980's and 1990's, before he became a YEC.

That must mean something.

Edited by dwise1, : ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by JonF, posted 07-10-2017 8:37 AM JonF has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
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