Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith Science - Logically Indefensible
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 121 of 166 (354490)
10-05-2006 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 2:20 PM


Its not impossible to overcome but certainly its a problem when preconceptions enter into the mind of the experimentor. But then again, we could look at this from another angle. Any scientific inquiry that is made is first derived from some preconcieved notion that prompts an investigation of evidence. We call this a hypothesis. So, if you think about it, all hypothesis' begin with preconceptions.
You are using the word "preconception" equivocally. It is true that I must think of an idea before I can test it; in that sense it is "preconceived". But there is no need for me to believe that idea; which is the sort of "preconception" which might cloud the mind of an experimenter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 2:20 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 4:27 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 122 of 166 (354503)
10-05-2006 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by PaulK
10-05-2006 3:45 PM


Re: Illogical premise
By some strange coincidence your accusations of fraud ALSO happened to have no corroboration. Apparently scientists are to be held guilty until proven innocent.
Since this is OT, this will be the last post I have on this topic. Its already been overwhelmingly proven that those are frauds or the deliberate withholding of evidence. Therefore, if you want to spin some sort of creationist conspiracy theory, then the burden of proof lies with you, not with me or anyone else.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 3:45 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 10-05-2006 4:47 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 125 by Quetzal, posted 10-05-2006 5:30 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2006 5:57 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 128 by AdminNosy, posted 10-05-2006 9:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 166 (354505)
10-05-2006 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Dr Adequate
10-05-2006 3:55 PM


suspicions
You are using the word "preconception" equivocally. It is true that I must think of an idea before I can test it; in that sense it is "preconceived". But there is no need for me to believe that idea; which is the sort of "preconception" which might cloud the mind of an experimenter.
What I meant was that whenever somebody sees a phenomenon they can't totally explain, the starting point for any scientific inquiry comes from some idea or preexisting notion in the mind of the experimentor. This is obvious. Where it becomes a problem is when the experimentor deliberately falsifies information that runs counter to his personal belief(s). That's where I make the distinction.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-05-2006 3:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 124 of 166 (354511)
10-05-2006 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Illogical premise
quote:
Since this is OT, this will be the last post I have on this topic. Its already been overwhelmingly proven that those are frauds or the deliberate withholding of evidence. Therefore, if you want to spin some sort of creationist conspiracy theory, then the burden of proof lies with you, not with me or anyone else.
Of course the fact is that you offered no corroboration. Simply asserting that there is proof elsewhere is just another double standard. Even if it were true.
The question was one of motive as well as fraud. Some are frauds as I agreed - but your claim of motive has not been supported. In the case of the others your assertion is an outright falsehood.
I will also add that I have not made the assertion that there is any creationist conspiracy. Why should there be ? Creationists freely copy from each other. There need be no organised conspiracy. All it takes is for one creationist to publicise a false accusation and others will repeat it without bothering to check it.
If you dare, you can start a thread to back up your assertions. A Great Debate if you like. I have no fear because I know that the truth is on my side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 4:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 125 of 166 (354519)
10-05-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Illogical premise
I have challenged you before to support these ridiculous allegations in the appropriate thread. The ball is in your court - put up or shut up on this particular subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 4:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 126 of 166 (354533)
10-05-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Illogical premise
Its already been overwhelmingly proven that those are frauds or the deliberate withholding of evidence.
Assuming for a second that you are right and those were all frauds meant to advance evolutionary theory...
Can't we agree regarding the OP, that those that did so were acting out of faith and not proper science?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 4:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2006 6:41 PM Silent H has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 127 of 166 (354548)
10-05-2006 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Silent H
10-05-2006 5:57 PM


Re: Illogical premise
Can't we agree regarding the OP, that those that did so were acting out of faith and not proper science?
Exactly!
And another major difference worth pointing out is that all those frauds were eventually exposed by.......scientists doing real science!!! So boo sucks to the whole scientific conspiracy against God theory.
I would also like to say that there are numerous examples in the history of science of scientists being certain of something but the evidence being against them - Hoyle's steady state universe, the existence of the aether etc. etc.
Is it even imaginable that the faith based position of YE creationists could be even dented by new evidence?
Edited by AdminJar, : fix quotebox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Silent H, posted 10-05-2006 5:57 PM Silent H has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 128 of 166 (354589)
10-05-2006 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 4:24 PM


Debating honestly
Deciding you will just stop a discussion when you are backed into a corner is NOT an example of the kind of debate we want to encourage.
I suggest you try harder.
Edited by AdminNosy, : correcting the author

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 4:24 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 129 of 166 (354614)
10-05-2006 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
10-03-2006 9:19 PM


Art is not Science
The Bible is not science. It is art.
What does the word Bible mean?
It means 'book.' What's a book? Literature. What's literature? Art.
What does the word Scripture mean?
It means 'writing.' What's writing? Literature. What's literature? Art.
It is a mistake to treat art as science. The result will be bad science and bad art.
_

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 10-03-2006 9:19 PM Percy has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 130 of 166 (354734)
10-06-2006 8:24 AM


Topic Drift Alert
Guys, the discussion of evolutionary fraud really *is* off-topic for this thread, AdminNosy's request to keep-a-goin' notwithstanding. It's a valid topic that has been discussed here many times, so please just pick up discussion in one of the pre-existing threads or propose a new topic over at PNT.
I can see a way where evolutionary fraud can be drawn into this thread's topic. Creationists could describe how evolutionary preconceptions drove the efforts at fraud.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
foxjoe 
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 166 (362269)
11-06-2006 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by subbie
09-30-2006 1:10 PM


Re: "Person of faith"
subbie said:
Most scientists are in fact people of faith.
Please name 2?
Let me name a few that aren't of faith:
Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins, Gould,
Darwin, Huxley, Eldredge, Mayr, Simpson, Johanson, Leakey, Sagan, and Asimov

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 09-30-2006 1:10 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 11-07-2006 6:20 AM foxjoe has replied

  
foxjoe 
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 166 (362277)
11-06-2006 9:41 PM


I said this on a Christian forum in Appologetics and am now BOOTED.
Scientists follow the evidence, and throw out incorrect data. When theories are found to be falsifiable, they throw out the theory. Its now almost been 150 years since "Origin of Species" and it is still going strong. There are countless errors and inconsitancies in the Bible, and it has yet to be thrown out. Who here is more arrogant? The scientist that accepts the possiblity that one of his theories may be wrong, or the Christian?
Something to contemplate.

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by foxjoe, posted 11-06-2006 9:47 PM foxjoe has not replied

  
foxjoe 
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 166 (362280)
11-06-2006 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by foxjoe
11-06-2006 9:41 PM


Templeton
I don't think there is one Christian scientist that has not been given a lot of money by the Templeton foundation that is a Christian Fundamentalist.
Another thought...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by foxjoe, posted 11-06-2006 9:41 PM foxjoe has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 11-06-2006 9:53 PM foxjoe has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 134 of 166 (362282)
11-06-2006 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by foxjoe
11-06-2006 9:47 PM


Re: Templeton
Why do you conflate "faith" with "Christian" and with "fundamentalism"?
Edited by Ringo, : Spellinge.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by foxjoe, posted 11-06-2006 9:47 PM foxjoe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by foxjoe, posted 11-06-2006 10:02 PM ringo has replied

  
foxjoe 
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 166 (362285)
11-06-2006 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ringo
11-06-2006 9:53 PM


Re: Templeton
That is easy: you see I believe (with some evidence) that Christians that are not fundamentalists, doesn't fit my definition of Christianity. Think about it. Most Christians that go to say presperterian, or old methodist churches, are not concerned with atheists. In fact they are more agnostic, than most atheists. (the two aren't mutually exclusive).
I am not a "Sam Harris" whom has problems with Moderate Christians. They are not interested in thinking about Christianity deeply, just interested in establishing church relationships, singing, dinners, events and social friendships.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ringo, posted 11-06-2006 9:53 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 11-06-2006 10:12 PM foxjoe has replied
 Message 137 by jar, posted 11-06-2006 10:18 PM foxjoe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024