Faith now has her own forum (pertaining to evcforum.net topics)

Admin writes:Hi Faith,You don't like what I said about your approach to discussion, and I don't think much of posturing and indignation as rebuttal, so we're even. If you want to be treated like an adult then begin acting like one. See if you can stick with an actual discussion for a change, without characterizing replies as "maddening", or the ever popular "You are all so infuriating." See this discussion through to the end, contribute constructively throughout, and thereby prove my criticism completely wrong. So far you're just proving my point.Let's make the steps even smaller and see if we can find some common ground. What did you mean when you said this in Message 1: What part of my Message 144 "defines creationism out of existence"? Weren't you referring to the parts about science's focus on the natural world?--Percy

AdminFaith writes:You will not talk to me like that if you want to have a discussion with me.

Admin writes: What you're doing is what you always do. As serious examination of your position draws increasingly difficult to avoid, you sabotage discussion by finding an excuse to get up on your high horse and ride off in a huff, or your other favored alternative, disintegrating into an excoriation of all and sundry that brings discussion to a halt as the moderators have to take over. Go ahead, Faith, prove me wrong.There's another choice available to you. You could contribute constructively to the discussion. This is a simple question, please help move the discussion forward by addressing it: What part of my Message 144 "defines creationism out of existence"? Weren't you referring to the parts about science's focus on the natural world?--Percy

AdminFaith writes:You will apologize for your personal comments in posts #178, #191, and #193. You will rescind them, you will promise not to say such things again, and THEN we will have a discussion, and not otherwise. The problem is not me complaining about abusive treatment, Percy, it is the abusive treatment itself, in this case your unbelievably rude and abusive way of dealing with me and others such as Buz.And contrary to your snide analysis of my motives, I do want to have this discussion, but I refuse to submit to this kind of treatment from you.

AdminFaith writes:To show that I am very willing to continue this discussion, I am starting a new thread which AdminWounded so wisely suggested is needed.
Some of the discussion already underway can be brought over here or at least linked to. It starts at Message 169 and runs to Message 195.Although I'm very willing to have this discussion, as I said on the other thread, I will only have it on the terms I gave in the above message 195: As soon as the above conditions are met by Percy, I will answer his question in his post 191, repeated in 193:

Admin writes:Hi Faith,Following is the text of my last message from the thread where we were off-topic, Message 193. Sorry you don't like the image in the mirror I'm holding up, but changing it is under your control, not mine. I predicted that you would get up on your high horse and ride off into the sunset, and that's just what you're doing. If you find it insulting to have your behavior accurately described then I suggest you stop behaving that way.I'm sure that around your dinner table it's considered rude to mention Ole Aunt Faith's problems with self control, but this isn't your dinner table. This is EvC Forum, and I'm the lead moderator responsible for insuring, among other things, that EvC Forum remains a premier discussion site for issues related to the creation/evolution debate. I see your participation in the science forums as a significant obstacle to that goal. If you would like to discuss this then I suggest you pick up the thread of the discussion by addressing the question I raise at the end.--Percy

---

What you're doing is what you always do. As serious examination of your position becomes increasingly difficult to avoid, you sabotage discussion by finding an excuse to get up on your high horse and ride off in a huff, or your other favored alternative, disintegrating into an excoriation of all and sundry that brings discussion to a halt as the moderators have to take over. Go ahead, Faith, prove me wrong.There's another choice available to you. You could contribute constructively to the discussion. This is a simple question, please help move the discussion forward by addressing it: What part of my Message 144 "defines creationism out of existence"? Weren't you referring to the parts about science's focus on the natural world?--Percy

AdminFaith writes:So be it. Buh bye.
Oh and if you ever recognize your disgusting error, your message #6 is now to be added to the list of those to be apologized for.I'm not holding my breath.

Faith at Faith's Forum writes:The way I remember it is that what Percy said in Message 178, which he doesn't include in this post, was what prompted me to take the position that I absolutely would not continue the discussion until he apologized for it.

Admin in Message 178 writes:Hi Faith,We can discuss this if that is your wish, but only if you're truly willing to engage in a discussion. If you wish only to follow the same pattern that led me to request that you cut back your participation in the science forums then there really can't be a discussion.Rather than reply to all of your message at once, let me reply to it one portion at a time and show you in which way each part is either right or wrong. There's no larger audience here, there are no lurkers, it's just us admins, so there's no need for posturing. Starting with the first paragraph: We've been over this before. You've said this before and it's been answered before. This is fine as an introductory paragraph if followed by, "Now I understand from our previous discussions that your response to this is...", and then go off to produce some rebuttal. But you don't do that. You once again start the debate from square one.You not only tend to begin discussions from scratch, but even in mid-thread you'll revert to the very beginning. Buzsaw does the same thing. It's as if there's no understanding that discussion is a give and take where each party listens and responds to the other. A discussion is not a speech or a soliloquy where the only voice you hear is your own.I'm going to examine your first paragraph sentence by sentence: To the extent that creationism hypothesizes about phenomena that have no evidence from the natural world, it does not possess one of the key qualities of science: observation of natural phenomena. The goal of science is to understand the natural world. The message you refer to was not a list of scientific requirements. It listed the qualities of science, and it enumerated the steps of the scientific method.The modern creationist movement began with Henry Morris and his book The Genesis Flood, published around 1960. The origins of modern empirical science trace back to Roger Bacon (1214-1294 AD), continued through Francis Bacon (no relation, 1561-1626 AD), and reached a somewhat recognizably modern form through the work of René Descartes (1596-1650 AD), most notably his Discourse on Method. The method continued to be refined through the 18th and 19th centuries, and even into the 20th century with the philosophical debates surrounding Karl Popper's ideas. All this predated the modern creationism movement. The modern scientific method is not a response to creationism. There was a time when western science in Christian countries did put great weight on God's word as contained in the Bible. As time went by it was discovered that the evidence did not support Biblical accounts, and so step by gradual step the Bible was abandoned as a source of scientific knowledge.But science is a group activity with laborers from many nations, cultures and religions, many of whom have little to no contact with Christianity. Their science never used "an authoritative word from (the Christian) God as factual foundation for science."The key question is how well the Bible works as a source of scientific knowledge, and the answer is extremely poorly. If creationists have better approaches for figuring out how the world works then they would continually beat traditional scientists in the race to new discoveries. If creationism had truly found a better way to do science then their record of success would be drawing more and more scientists away from traditional science, and the Bible colleges would be filled to overflowing with applications from scientific hopefuls from all over the world. But nothing like this is happening or has ever happened, and I think you would be hard put to cite a single creationist discovery in any field of science.Summarizing what is right and wrong about your first paragraph:

1. For those who view creationism's foundation to be Biblical events, then creationism is not science, and the characterization of science I provided does exclude this brand of creationism. But keep in mind that you are not a mainstream creationist. Mainstream creationism sincerley wants creation science to be accepted as every much legitimate science as evolution, deserving of treatment alongside or even replacing evolution. In order to replace evolution it has to possess the same qualities of science and follow the same methodology of science as does evolution, and this is just what mainstream creationism claims.
   ​
   In other words, mainstream creationism rejects your suggestion. When creationists make presentations to school boards they avoid any reference to the Bible and talk about how the evidence actually supports a young earth and a global flood. They very much want to convince school boards that creation science is every much the same type of science as evolution. And you yourself are inconsistent on this point, because while in your initial paragraph you tacitly concede that creationism doesn't qualify as science, later in your message you argue that there is scientific evidence for the flood.
   ​
   So are you right about science excluding creationism by definition? As far as what you say in your message it really isn't possible to tell, since you seem to be promoting two conflicting views of creationism, one based on Biblical revelation, and another based on evidence from the natural world. When you pick one or the other then I'll be able to tell you whether creationism is excluded from science by definition.
   ​
2. You were incorrect when you speculated that the criteria for science were formulated as a response to creationism.
   ​
3. About earlier science accepting God's authority on scientific matters, you are correct, there was a time when this was so. But as evidence from the natural world was gathered and accumulated, it failed to support God's authority.

So that completes my response to your first paragraph. Why don't you take a stab at replying and we'll see if we can move the discussion constructively forward.--Percy