Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The lack of empirical evidence for the theory of evolution, according to Faith.
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 91 of 138 (197846)
04-09-2005 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by crashfrog
04-09-2005 3:27 AM


quote:
I also have an advantage, perhaps, for holding to this position, in that I started out a pretty strong atheist who took evolution for granted and only began to consider creationist arguments after becoming a Christian.
= = = = = =
Out of curiosity, is there anyone for whom this isn't true? Is there anybody that was convinced by creationism's own "scientific" or evidentiary merits, rather than being forced into creationism as a point of dogma stemming from a conversion to or upbringing in faith?
The comparison I intended was with people who grew up Christians. I believe I have an advantage as far as strength of faith goes in that I had to think my way through all of it.
{EDIT: P.S. I wouldn't even have thought of reading creationism before I became a Christian. I might have found it intriguing if I had, but like most people who take the status quo for granted it didn't even occur to me. I had no idea there was even anything to read.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-09-2005 02:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2005 3:27 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 92 of 138 (197848)
04-09-2005 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Faith
04-09-2005 3:15 AM


It IS "us vs. them" here, no getting around that. It is too bad but I find I have to be on the opposite side of Christians here. They are "them" to me unfortunately.
If you believe this then (IMHO), you have missed the point entirely. I regard EvC as a crucible where we put the torch to whatever ideas/beliefs/concepts we can come up with. Too rarely are these challenged in life and people suffer because of them. I lurked in admiration for over twelve months before I posted because there was so much high-class information to be absorbed.Even now, the range of talent and quality insights are hard to find elsewhere. The very fact that people have patiently shared their knowledge with you in spite of a stream of denigration should give you an idea of the calibre of the posters. Put your anger away and join in a spirit of adventure. Who knows, you may even learn a thing or two.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 3:15 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 3:56 AM Nighttrain has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 93 of 138 (197849)
04-09-2005 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Nighttrain
04-09-2005 3:53 AM


Kindly do not patronize me. I am a good learner and quite willing to learn. And I know what I'm doing. Try respecting MY point of view and I'll stick around a lot longer.
{EDIT: And by the way, the thinking here is NOT so high caliber. Read my post about the supposed lying by the ID people. The inability to understand that they weren't lying, but that Pink Sasquatch simply misread the whole thing, and Crashfrog's still not getting it, do not speak well for high caliber thinking.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-09-2005 03:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Nighttrain, posted 04-09-2005 3:53 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Nighttrain, posted 04-09-2005 4:00 AM Faith has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 94 of 138 (197851)
04-09-2005 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Faith
04-09-2005 3:56 AM


Then avoid using abuse to cover your lack of knowledge and you won`t be 'patronised'. So far you have rubbished science, evolution, geology, 'evidence', and now fellow Christians don`t measure up. Who`s left?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 3:56 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 4:02 AM Nighttrain has not replied
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 4:03 AM Nighttrain has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 95 of 138 (197852)
04-09-2005 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Nighttrain
04-09-2005 4:00 AM


And YOUR thinking isn't so high caliber either, as I haven't "rubbished" anything BUT evolutionism and FALSE ideas about evidence. Geology remains sacrosanct and so does biology. Pay attention.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Nighttrain, posted 04-09-2005 4:00 AM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-12-2005 11:37 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 96 of 138 (197853)
04-09-2005 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Nighttrain
04-09-2005 4:00 AM


And the "abuse" is a very recent thing. Not that you care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Nighttrain, posted 04-09-2005 4:00 AM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Nighttrain, posted 04-09-2005 4:05 AM Faith has replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 97 of 138 (197855)
04-09-2005 4:05 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
04-09-2005 4:03 AM


Oops, I left bible scholars off the list.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 4:03 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 4:11 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 98 of 138 (197856)
04-09-2005 4:11 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Nighttrain
04-09-2005 4:05 AM


Nonbelieving Bible "scholars" yes indeed, I do disrespect most of them. Disbelief destroys. They start from the presupposition that miracles are not possible for instance, and how much of the Bible do you think would remain intact starting from such a premise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Nighttrain, posted 04-09-2005 4:05 AM Nighttrain has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 99 of 138 (197857)
04-09-2005 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by crashfrog
04-09-2005 3:25 AM


Re: the Idea Center lies
How about not? In my book, when you make assertions that you know aren't true, that's lying. Either we're to presume that creationists like the Idea Center are unable to read text put in front of them, or else they're putting forth assertions that they know are wrong.
Uh huh, but this is precisely the kind of slanderous assumption I proved false. PROVED false (my posts 81 and 83).
That would either make them idiots or liars. It's up to you, I guess, which one we're supposed to consider them.
No, it's up to you to recognize the truth of the matter, that they are neither, and you and PS can't think your way out of a paper bag.
Junk DNA being junk wasn't an evolutionary concusion; in fact, it's the opposite of an evolutionary conclusion. There's no evolutionary reason that an organism should have non-functional DNA sequences given that there's a non-zero metabolic cost for the constant replication of these sequences. They shouldn't exist. And as it turns out, they don't. They have functions. Evolution wins again.
This is NOT the point. The point is that the ID people are pointing out that it was evolutionists who came up with the junk DNA idea, and they think that possibly ID people wouldn't have -- or didn't. If their reasoning is wrong it certainly isn't wrong in the ways you ascribe to it. You are logic-challenged that's all.
Personally I think PS gives them too much credit; he assumes that the Idea Center actually bothered to find out the truth before spouting their falsehoods. I doubt they did any more work than opening a magazine. So while PS feels that they're liars, I disagree. My view is the alternative; they're idiots.
No, you are either the idiot or the liar, as I proved conclusively that PS misinterpreted their reasoning.
Yeah, I know you're going to have a big hissy-fit about it. Well, that's tough. That's what comes of advocating a position so obviously and thouroughly wrong.
Oh, which one is that? I don't agree with ID, remember, I'm just pointing out that they did not lie and are not stupid and those who think so are logic-challenged to put it nicely. It is you who are advocating THIS position which is the one that is "obviously and thoroughly wrong."
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-09-2005 03:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2005 3:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-09-2005 5:14 AM Faith has replied
 Message 107 by crashfrog, posted 04-09-2005 10:46 AM Faith has replied

  
Arkansas Banana Boy
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 138 (197860)
04-09-2005 5:14 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Faith
04-09-2005 4:48 AM


Great Debate awaits
Picking fights and bickering distract you from overturning the modern concepts of geology. Strata formation in changing depositional environments awaits your comprehension.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 4:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 5:35 AM Arkansas Banana Boy has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 101 of 138 (197862)
04-09-2005 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Arkansas Banana Boy
04-09-2005 5:14 AM


Re: Great Debate awaits
quote:
Picking fights and bickering distract you from overturning the modern concepts of geology. Strata formation in changing depositional environments awaits your comprehension.
If I don't get a grip on the basic irrationality of some of the posters it won't interest me at all to try to grapple with the Grand Canyon because the whole enterprise here will remain a trip to neverneverland. I'd like to take the debate slowly if you don't mind. Or even if you do.
And by the way, please see my posts 81 and 83 in this thread, because if nobody here gets the point of those posts I will truly understand what I'm up against and be able to act accordingly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Arkansas Banana Boy, posted 04-09-2005 5:14 AM Arkansas Banana Boy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Silent H, posted 04-09-2005 6:00 AM Faith has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 102 of 138 (197863)
04-09-2005 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
04-08-2005 6:33 PM


I AM NOT "EQUIVOCATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instead of shouting you might just go back and look at what is being said. It is quite clear you were (though it doens't have to be intentional). You were clearly taking about standards in the sense of quality (otherwise high standards is meaningless), and I was talking about standards in the sense of set curricula (agreed upon as important by those within the field).
If you do not get that employing the term "high standards" implicitly means you are not discussing the "standards" I am talking about, you need to take a breather and figure out that there are two definitions being used here.
There are about, what, TWO flat-earthers left on the planet? What are you worried about?
That fact should indicate exactly why I am worried. You said that the legal criteria for not being taught something is belief in something else, and that one's own theories should be taught as true (at least to ones self) and you should be accredited for that knowledge. To do otherwise is to introduce church vs state issues.
The result of this is that (using your argument) those two flat earthers can form a homeschool and expect accreditation for teaching students flat-earth, instead of round earth theories.
And more frightening to me than the example case given, are the holocaust disbelievers (which are more numerous than the flat earthers), and the many other belief systems which might emerge in the future and suddenly want accreditation.
I don't believe we are best served by allowing individuals to decide what the standards of a field should be.
High standards means STANDARDS, the ones accepted by ALL.
This sentence makes no sense given the nature of the words being used. Let me illustrate by rewriting it using the actual meanings in play:
"High quality instruction means curricular subject areas expected by members in that field of study, the onese accepted by All"
It is slightly contradictory, unless you are going to refute your own position that Xian kids should be taken out of public schools.
I made it clear that Christians expect to meet the national standards and in fact exceed them
How can they do this if they teach anything other than that the ToE and OE timelines are the best models modern science has to offer? Those are currently the national standards. Those are the ones accepted by "all".
Unless by all you do not mean those in established fields of biology or geology. In that case I would like to know what you mean by all, other than each community of residents (regardless of knowledge), and thus a splintering of standards would result.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 04-08-2005 6:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 6:14 AM Silent H has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 103 of 138 (197865)
04-09-2005 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Faith
04-09-2005 5:35 AM


Re: Great Debate awaits
And by the way, please see my posts 81 and 83 in this thread, because if nobody here gets the point of those posts I will truly understand what I'm up against and be able to act accordingly.
I did. First you falsely accused all evos of having to resort to blaming nonevos as having evil intentions. Second you proceeded to prove once again you do not understand the methodology of modern science and instead posit a deductive system as modern science.
This is getting tiresome. Why don't you read up on actual scientific methods and the history of them. Even some logic might help (meaning there are some logical techniques being employed in science you seem unaware of).
Why do you assume that you are not mistaken, when you talk to people in that specific field, and they tell you that you are making a mistake? And that includes the field of ID theory which I have read quite a bit of.
Have you read any of Dembski's books?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 5:35 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 04-09-2005 3:18 PM Silent H has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 104 of 138 (197866)
04-09-2005 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Silent H
04-09-2005 5:49 AM


quote:
I AM NOT "EQUIVOCATING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Instead of shouting you might just go back and look at what is being said. It is quite clear you were (though it doens't have to be intentional). You were clearly taking about standards in the sense of quality (otherwise high standards is meaningless), and I was talking about standards in the sense of set curricula (agreed upon as important by those within the field).
If you do not get that employing the term "high standards" implicitly means you are not discussing the "standards" I am talking about, you need to take a breather and figure out that there are two definitions being used here.

I was well aware of what you meant and I spoke to it, although perhaps the other meaning of the word was also used somewhere in the discussion -- I would not have confused the two. I said very clearly that Christian schooling -- including homeschooling -- aims to meet established standards of curricula. I also said more than once I believe that my own personal objective would be to assure that Christians were taught evolutionism better than the public schools teach it, along with all the objections to it. That way standards would be more than met and the children would have learned how to think clearly instead of just absorbing information.
quote:
There are about, what, TWO flat-earthers left on the planet? What are you worried about?
That fact should indicate exactly why I am worried. You said that the legal criteria for not being taught something is belief in something else, and that one's own theories should be taught as true (at least to ones self) and you should be accredited for that knowledge. To do otherwise is to introduce church vs state issues.

I never said any such thing. YOu have spun off from my one remark that the public schools' imposing evolutionism on children of creationists is as much a violation of their rights as the reverse situation is a violation. You just galloped off in some direction of your own with this and I never really did figure out where you were going with it.
The result of this is that (using your argument) those two flat earthers can form a homeschool and expect accreditation for teaching students flat-earth, instead of round earth theories.
Nonsense. I never said anything about being accredited at all, as a matter of fact, and I wouldn't defend any notion of being accredited for idiosyncratic material, only for meeting national standards. I would also defend anybody's right to any kind of education they like, however, but I would not expect national accreditation. I never said anything remotely like that. That's your own strange worry.
And more frightening to me than the example case given, are the holocaust disbelievers (which are more numerous than the flat earthers), and the many other belief systems which might emerge in the future and suddenly want accreditation.
You can put the accreditation idea to rest. I have no idea why you think that is even remotely a possibility. If I defend people's right to idiosyncratic education and experience, that is not a demand that these oddnesses be made part of a system of national standards. The idea is absurd. I simply think we should stop being so uptight about people's differences. We do not all have to be robots in lockstep with a national program of education. But that idea also does not imply anything about giving up on standardization. If they can't meet certain standards then they can't meet them, and if that harms their outlook in life, then they will learn the value of meeting them, and if they'd prefer not to, well it's a free country, and you don't have to worry about them competing for positions against those who HAVE met the standards. We don't all have to be stamped out by the national cookie cutter.
I don't believe we are best served by allowing individuals to decide what the standards of a field should be.
Then rest easy as that isn't going to happen.
High standards means STANDARDS, the ones accepted by ALL.
-----
This sentence makes no sense given the nature of the words being used. Let me illustrate by rewriting it using the actual meanings in play:
-----
"High quality instruction means curricular subject areas expected by members in that field of study, the onese accepted by All"
----
It is slightly contradictory, unless you are going to refute your own position that Xian kids should be taken out of public schools.
-----
I made it clear that Christians expect to meet the national standards and in fact exceed them
-----
How can they do this if they teach anything other than that the ToE and OE timelines are the best models modern science has to offer? Those are currently the national standards. Those are the ones accepted by "all".
They will have to be taught them in order to meet them. Isn't that clear yet? They will ALSO be taught how to criticize the models to smithereens as well as defend them, and THAT they won't get in the public schools.
Unless by all you do not mean those in established fields of biology or geology. In that case I would like to know what you mean by all, other than each community of residents (regardless of knowledge), and thus a splintering of standards would result.
No. Competition for success will assure that no such splintering could occur. Nevertheless there would be a healthy variety, and if some don't meet the national standards then that's just that, they don't meet them. It isn't the end of the world if some people go their own way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 04-09-2005 5:49 AM Silent H has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by mark24, posted 04-09-2005 11:06 AM Faith has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 105 of 138 (197869)
04-09-2005 6:26 AM


Cooling down period - closing for at least a while
I just have a bad feeling about this topic.
Maybe someone should post to the "Thread Reopen Requests" topic, about why this topic should be reopened.
Adminnemooseus

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024