|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,418 Year: 3,675/9,624 Month: 546/974 Week: 159/276 Day: 33/23 Hour: 0/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1414 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Three Kinds of Creationists | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I'll say that you got this right, The Genesis 1 creation account starts with the Primordial Ocean of Middle Eastern Creation myths. A view completely at odds with the reality shown to us by science. And this is why anyone hoping to build a bridge between science and religion must recognise that religion includes myths, and myths cannot be taken as accurate accounts of what happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I think that you fail to grasp the concept of the Primordial Ocean as opposed to A primordial ocean. Or even understand that Genesis 1 has no concept of the planet Earth. Science accepts that there were primordial oceans prior to the appearance of life, but only after liquid water accumulated sufficiently. The Primordial Ocean, however, is the idea of the Ocean as the only physically existing thing - no planets, no stars, no life, except perhaps for some god or gods.
quote: I'm using myth in it's full sense here, not just as a synonym for falsehood. Many have written on myths as a way of conveying truths - just not those obtained by a superficial, literal, reading.
quote: I think that you will find that that is a rare occurrence. Witness, for instance, the success of Einstein with Relativity, and the pioneers of Quantum Theory (which Einstein helped lay the foundations for). You may have Wegener in mind, but don't forget that his ideas had problems that were not solved until later. On the other hand, even great scientists can come to fallacious views and those are rarely accepted on authority. Science is far from perfect, but it works. I'm not so sure that religion works nearly so well when it comes to any sort of knowledge at all.
quote: I think the more significant point is that it is scientific discoveries that you expect the religious to react to. Not religious discoveries. Religion does not really have any method of discovery to match that of science.
quote: The question here, is what does "spirituality" have to offer science ?And what concessions is science expected to make for these alleged benefits ? I hope that you're not proposing something as crude as science having to accept some religious beliefs just for the sake of compromise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I don't see how the conclusion can be avoided. Genesis 1 starts with the ocean and God as the only things existing. Everything else - not just life - comes later. Genesis 1 doesn't say that the ocean is necessary to precede life (it doesn't even imply it) but it does have the ocean existing before creation.
quote: Really ? How many great scientists have had their work rejected by the scientific community only to be vindicated after their death ? Or better, how many can you name ? There are reasons why science is conservative - to block bad ideas. And there are many which deserve to be blocked, and I think that they are rather more numerous.
quote: Why care about the source of inspiration at all ? I don't think that science does. The source of inspiration isn't the point - it's the work developing that inspiration from a mere idea to a strongly supported conclusion that counts.
quote: And I think you will find that it is the entirely conventional work that Kekul did following up that inspiration was the important thing. And that is how it should be.
quote: But the magical parts of alchemy don't seem to work, or to have benefited Newton. The advanced astronomy of the Egyptians and the Maya is the product of observation - i.e. through methods that modern science can duplicate or better even with the technology available to the ancients (ignoring modern problems like light pollution !). And amazing as some of the structures of the ancient world are, it seems to be more a matter of figuring out their techniques than anything special. (And the "Yogic flying" of TM is quite amusing to watch, and impressive in it's way, but again nothing that indicates that religion offers any deeper insights that science needs).
quote: If you want to claim that faith can be a valid way of attaining knowledge then I think that you are going to have to do more than just claim that it should be accepted. It looks to me as if faith is more a way of obscuring knowledge than attaining it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I think you're confusing what Genesis 1 says and what you personally believe. In Genesis 1, in the beginning, only God and the ocean are mentioned as existing, and many other things are mentioned as being created later. (including the stars, many of which existed long before our planet)
quote: Not really - if they've been vindicated then there wouldn't be anything kooky about believing that they were right.
quote: Maybe so, but any system will be imperfect. The question is how bad it really is. Wegener's ideas were blocked for reasons that were justifiable at the time. And we haven't had any examples from you.
quote: Well the first thing to establish is if the monks can really levitate. Everything I've seen says that no, they can't (except for the weird jumping about of "yogic flying"). And if they can't then there is nothing to study. So, let's get the unexplained phenomena demonstrated properly before we talk about studying it or making bizarre speculations about how it might work. Actually I find it very odd that you wouldn't talk about scientific work that had been rejected and later vindicated because you think that it would make you look kooky (how ?), while going on about "vibrations/brainwaves" "changing magnetic fields" enabling people to "defy gravity". Which is absolutely. definitely kooky.
quote: I've yet to see any way in which it "enlightens knowledge"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Since this is in Free For All...
quote: One could say that tempting fate by issuing such an easily met challenge is itself stupid - there is something of an embarrassment of riches... But here's a few examples from one thread and it's follow-on: 1) Citing a website devoted to penny stocks as an authority on hurricane frequency without doing adequate checks on the claims it made Message 256 In fact it turned out to rely on assuming that a list of selected major hurricanes was a complete list of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. Wrong! (It wasn't even restricted to hurricanes making landfall in the U.S.!) 2) Setting aside data from an authoritative source (NOAA) that contradicted the penny stock website by indicating that there were hurricanes not on the list used by webpennys Message 286 and again Message 17 and again Message 43 3) Falsely claiming that the NOAA list used as a basis for the webpennys article was "the only NOAA frequency trend chart available " when - as had already been shown - it was only an incomplete list of major hurricanes around the U.S. Message 44Whether the stupidity is in ignoring the existence of the obviously better information that had already been offered, or in thinking that nobody would notice such an obvious falsehood is left to the readers... And I can find plenty more.... Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Since I cited 5 messages in my post saying that there is only 1 is not exactly sensible.
quote: These are not just questionable posts, though. I really, really doubt that you can find anything in my posts that is as stupid as claiming that we should use the webpenny's list because it was or was based on "the only NOAA frequency trend chart available" when it wasn't even based on a NOAA frequency trend chart (or any other list that would be valid for working out the frequency of hurricanes) and actual NOAA frequency data had already been cited in the thread. And since you seem to doubt that I can find more really stupid claims, here's another one:
Btw, the clip which I provided shows Mollar's scientific method of falsification. He researched the Red Sea topography in the region of the long acclaimed traditional Mt Sinai, finding it much deeper and more rugged, lacking any corroborative evidence.
from Message 364 In reality, the only other "possible" crossing site mentioned was the Straits of Tiran, which is the main alternative among those who prefer Jebel-al-Lawz over the traditional Mt. Sinai and that was shallower! And, as anybody who followed the discussions knows, the traditional Gulf of Suez and the Bitter Lakes preferred by modern scholars are shallower still.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: I think that if you had decent evidence and sound arguments you could do rather better than you do. The fact that you lack both good evidence and good arguments is a major reason why you do so badly here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
More correctly Panda pointed out - yet again - that Buzsaw's ban from the science forum was not an attempt to silence an effective debater, but instead done to remove an arrogant, ignorant, prejudiced, irrational waste of time.
Buz asked for evidence of his stupidity, probably running one of his typical bluffs - and the rest is history. He never learns...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: As Panda has already pointed out you asked for three of four examples. I've listed SIX posts so far. But yes, you've been here long enough that we know that your challenge wasn't honest... But since you want more: Message 27 Attempting to answer genetic dating by repeating the nonsensical claim (a claim that even the major YEC organisations would recognise as stupid) that the Flood would disrupt all major radiometric dating methods. Despite often repeating this claim - and often being challenged on it - you have never made any serious attempt to explain how it could even be possible. For instance - fission track dating is based on counting the "scars" left by the nuclear fission of U238 in a sample of rock, with the age being based on the density of the tracks. How would a flood affect that, so as to give an older age (heat can make the rock appear younger by erasing tracks but obviously that is no help to you). But the real stupidity is in using it to try to refute a claim that is completely unaffected by the age of rocks. Even if your claim had been entirely true instead of a silly fabrication it would still be completely irrelevant.
quote: The vast majority of the membership...
quote: How does it factor in ? You haven't disputed a single example. And every example I've given is based on objective facts, not ideology. For instance it is an objective fact that the NOAA list used by the webpenny site was not intended for use as frequency data and is not suitable for such use. It is an objective fact that actual NOAA frequency data was cited. It was therefore objectively untrue that the webpenny list was "NOAA frequency trend data" and objectively untrue that we had no other source. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Nobody is saying that all creationists are stupid. Just that a great many of your posts are.
quote: And yet not one of my examples is based on ideology at all. At least not any ideology you've admitted to following.
quote: This is yet another stupid lie from Buzsaw. In fact Buz, you have NEVER given any valid reasons and your position is so stupid that no knowledgable YEC would endorse it. And I provided just one example of the things that you have failed to explain, in fission track dating - which you fail to answer.
quote: And often they are even more stupid. Look, Buz, forget your ego and actually try to be honest for once. Actually look at the examples and think about what you're doing. And maybe one day you'll be a decent human being. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024