Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

quote:

---

I mostly read them over but have very little to say on the topic.

---

With all due repect (And I am serious), your lack of knowledge on the subject does not make it irrelevent. It is so relevent to this debate that I am encouraging you to learn more about it.

I totally agree with you Buz. I know you might think I'm being facetious - being the died-in-the-wool evo that I am - but I truly believe that if ID is ever to be accepted as a scientific endeavor, its proponents are going to have to compete in the scientific arena. And that means playing by science's rules, and being held to the standards applied to all scientific inquiry.I fully concur with both your argument and conclusions in this post. Well done.

I agree that my personal lack of knowledge doesn't say much of anything about the material.What I need to be shown is just what it is relevant to and in what way.I do (mostly) read over the threads but only pay a lot of attention if I think there might be something relevant. I paid particular attention to some of the threads talking about prophecy and found them about as laughable as the super market tabloids this time of year.If you wish to demonstarte the relevance at any time I'll probably be watching.

You are still insisting that the "spiritual realm" has relevance when discussing the natural world. Very well, please answer the following questions using whatever Scripture, Apocrypha, "spirit channeling" or whatever trips your fancy:1. Why are there no predators on Barro Colorado?2. Why are there tigers on Bali but not Lompok?3. Why is the venom of Bothrops insularis 3-5 times more toxic than any other member of the Bothrops genus?4. Why are there 23 species of tenrecs on Madagascar, but not one single species found anywhere else in the world, even in similar habitats, even as fossils?5. Explain the disappearance of the once highly diverse orders of ammonites and trilobites. Why did they disappear at different times?6. Bonus challenge: Explain, using spiritual or biblical referents, why Cecropia species are the first plants to regrow in degraded or edge habitat zones - even though said plants are never found in undegraded habitat. This is your opportunity to prove that an element in evolutionary theory - ecological assembly rules - is better understood using the Bible than evolution.Please note that "God did it that way" or "God works in mysterious ways" are insufficient in and of themselves. A bit of flesh on the assertion will be required to convince me that spirituality has any relevance for science.Good luck.

quote:

---

What I need to be shown is just what it is relevant to and in what way

---

Ok...fair enough.Here is my appeal:Carefully and methodically study the claims of the Bible about creationI consider it relevent to a general discussion of evolution v creation.I believe it is relevent because creationists find reason to trust the claims in the Bible about origins, and it is fitting to examine the claims we believe to be true as we examine the claims you believe to be true.

Quetzal,

quote:

---

A bit of flesh on the assertion will be required to convince me that spirituality has any relevance for science.

---

The Bible does not just talk about the spiritual realm. It talks about this physical world, and I am saying that those claims are relevent to this discussion of our physical existence. I am not asking you to study feelings and demons and angels, I am asking you to study the claims in the Bible about the creation of this physical world. Because, afterall, there is a question of whether or not we were created.

I like putting lines like these next to each other. It's fun.

No no. You misunderstood. I couldn't care less about studying the Bible. I'll stipulate that you're the duty expert here. However, you have made the claim that scientists are missing out on their "search for truth" by rejecting a spiritual component. Those six questions are your opportunity to use concrete examples of how such a component increases our understanding of life. Go for it.

Dan,Nobody has sufficiently refuted my claim of Creationists being held to a higher standard or acknowledged my proposed remedies. I guess that's what I get for staying on topic when I could have just been looking for ways to undermine my opponents.For your information, I never said the theory of evolution (whatever it is) is irrelevent to this debate, did I? Why do you think I'm here in a forum that only talks science? It is so I can know your claims better to.Look closer at my argument. I am not saying the ignorance is the problem am I? I'm saying the unwillingness to recognize the relevence of other things besides science in this debate is the problem.So yes, I am ignorant of the scientific end, but I am recognizing it is relevent. But you are not recognizing the relevence of history and Biblical claims. It is that which I have attacked.

Well, I have read Genesis a number of times. I have followed a lot of what is brought up about it here. I also read widely in the sciences. The interpretations given by various forms of "creationists" (and by that I mean literalists or young earthers) are clearly wrong.If you can bring something new to the discussion that would be interesting. You previous posts make me suspect that you have nothing new nor any ability to mount a clear, logical discussion but you're friendly enough so let's see what you've got.

I missed the guts of that support for your claim. Could you link to the relevant posts?

quetzal,

quote:

---

Those six questions are your opportunity to use concrete examples of how such a component increases our understanding of life. Go for it.

---

If those are really the questions you wish to make your life's goal in answering, that is fair, but I think there are additional important things to discover about life as well as those thing. There is a context in which the Bible concerns itself. And, it concerns itself a great deal with creation. No, it doesn't answer those questions. But those are not the only related questions.

Time to close this thread.If there is more to be said, please start a continuation thread in the Proposed New Topics.

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Message Formating Help
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

Did I say you did? I was pointing out that on one hand, you dismissed a theory as ludicrous and illogical (two theories now... before it was the big bang, now it's evolution...) based on your own ignorance of it. Now you're complaining about people making judgements (namely that of relevance) based on their ignorance.It's funny.