Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should intellectually honest fundamentalists live like the Amish?
paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 16 of 303 (230247)
08-05-2005 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
08-05-2005 1:56 PM


No, I think YOU should prove that creationist scientists today do this "IN THEIR WORK" (as opposed to their creationist apologetics if they engage in it).
If you aren't interested in serious discussion, but would rather employ whatever diversionary tactics you can think of, let's just say you disagree with the question in the OP and be done with it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 08-05-2005 1:56 PM Faith has not replied

EltonianJames
Member (Idle past 6094 days)
Posts: 111
From: Phoenix, Arizona USA
Joined: 07-22-2005


Message 17 of 303 (230377)
08-06-2005 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by paisano
08-02-2005 9:04 PM


Please reference your evidential source(s)
paisano writes:
The question proposed for discussion is based on the following observations:
1) Fundamentalists tend to advocate faith ,or mysticism, as superior to reason and the scientific method.
2) Fundamentalists tend to insist that if scientific data conflict with their religious texts or dogmas (as interpreted by the fundamentalists), the religious text or dogma is to be preferred as the arbiter of truth.
3) Nevertheless, most fundamentalists usually have no qualms about taking advantage of technologies that could not have been developed without the scientific concepts that conflict with their religious concepts.
Some examples of this are, antibiotics and evolution, computers and quantum physics, petroleum and mainstream geology.
More generally ,many fundamentalists regard the process of open scientific inquiry as inimical to , and in conflict with, their religious beliefs.
I propose a discussion of the following questions:
Is the use of technologies by fundamentalists, that depend on fundamentalist-rejected science, hypocritical or a form of intellectual freeloading?
Would fundamentalists who reject scientific reasoning in favor of faith or mysticism based epistemologies, be more intellectualy honest to adopt lifestyles that exclude the use of modern technologies that depend on the scientific reasoning they reject, much as the Amish do ?
I would like to view the evidential sources which you are relying on to validate your claims. I for one embrace science as a magnificent endeavor but am always mindful of the reality that science must correct itself when new evidence is uncovered that refutes commonly held beliefs in the various areas of science.
Science should never be embraced as the Sang Raal.
History has shown us that science is ongoing and must willingly re-evaluate itself given new scientific revelations that come to light. One well known example is:
Coelacanths or lobe-fins are a strange group of fishes that appeared 300 million years ago and until very recently were believed to have been extinct for at least 50 million years.
One of the greatest surprises in the field of science came about when a living Coelacanth was captured off the southern coast of Africa in 1937.
Named Latimeria chalumnae, this fish remained the only one of its kind until a new species, Malania anjouanae, was captured by a native fisherman off a tiny island near Madagascar.
The ancient Order of Crossopterygian fishes, to which the Coelacanths belong, are believed by scientists to be the common ancestor of modern fishes and land vertebrates.
Scientists believe that higher forms of life have developed from more primitive forms - this process is called evolution.
One important step in the evolution was the passage of animals from water to land. In order to make this change of habitat an animal needed a structure that could develop into a leg or foot and the Coelacanth has such a structure.
From fossil remains scientists long ago deduced that the supposedly extinct Coelacanth possessed a fleshy rather than a membranous fin.
With the amazing discovery of a living Coelacanth off the southwest African coast in December 1952, the deductions from fossil evidence have been confirmed.
An Italian zoological expedition which has been investigating the waters around the Comoro Islands in the Indian Ocean, believes there are many Coelacanths in that area. An underwater picture taken by this expedition was described by experts as a photograph of an immature living Coelacanth about two feet long.
From a Q&A page @ Error 404: Page Not Found
Science had to at least re-examine the contention that the coelacanth was extinct. I realize that to some individuals science may be the end all when it comes to truth, but science itself proves them to be in error. Science is a wonderful thing so long as one honestly recognizes its' limitations.
I await the presentation of the evidential sources used which support the claims you have made above.
Peace!

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by paisano, posted 08-02-2005 9:04 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by paisano, posted 08-07-2005 4:54 PM EltonianJames has replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 18 of 303 (230737)
08-07-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by EltonianJames
08-06-2005 1:41 AM


Re: Please reference your evidential source(s)
Science should never be embraced as the Sang Raal.
Indeed, but no such claim was made in the OP.
I for one embrace science as a magnificent endeavor but am always mindful of the reality that science must correct itself when new evidence is uncovered that refutes commonly held beliefs in the various areas of science.
And this is one of its strengths. Can the same be said of the views of at least some fundamentalist religionists? Are there circumstances under which you are willing to re-evaluate your interpretations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by EltonianJames, posted 08-06-2005 1:41 AM EltonianJames has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by EltonianJames, posted 08-07-2005 11:41 PM paisano has replied

EltonianJames
Member (Idle past 6094 days)
Posts: 111
From: Phoenix, Arizona USA
Joined: 07-22-2005


Message 19 of 303 (230843)
08-07-2005 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by paisano
08-07-2005 4:54 PM


Re: Please reference your evidential source(s)
paisano writes:
Are there circumstances under which you are willing to re-evaluate your interpretations?
Absolutely! I have had to do just that more than once. Now that I have answered your question would you be so kind as to provide what was requested in Message 17. Thank you.
Peace!

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by paisano, posted 08-07-2005 4:54 PM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by paisano, posted 08-08-2005 7:33 AM EltonianJames has not replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 20 of 303 (230885)
08-08-2005 7:33 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by EltonianJames
08-07-2005 11:41 PM


Re: Please reference your evidential source(s)
I think Point 1 or 2 can be substantiated by examining the stated position of the ICR. If your position is somewhat more flexible than the ICR, so much the better. Point 3 is a personal opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by EltonianJames, posted 08-07-2005 11:41 PM EltonianJames has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by AdminJar, posted 08-08-2005 12:16 PM paisano has replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 303 (230978)
08-08-2005 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by paisano
08-08-2005 7:33 AM


Can you add a link ...
to ICR's position and that of other similar organizations?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by paisano, posted 08-08-2005 7:33 AM paisano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by paisano, posted 08-09-2005 9:14 AM AdminJar has not replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 22 of 303 (231075)
08-08-2005 3:20 PM


This thread is based on kind of a silly proposition, but if the point is that there are modern technologies that would not be possible if everyone had a fundamentalist view of the Bible, the most glaring example is oil exploration. Oil is found in predictable places in strata. Geologists find this oil by looking at core samples that contain part of the geologic column. The fossils in the geologic column are sorted according to their age - young fossils in upper layers, older fossils in lower levels. The identity of these fossils is crucial for predicting where the oil deposits will be located. Without them geologists would be "drilling blind", a highly wasteful practice. If the geologic column had been constructed by a global flood, as the fundamentalists believe, the fossils would have sorted according to sedimentation rates within a relatively brief period of time and the current method of finding oil deposits would not work. So at some level an oil geologist cannot believe the flood story to be literally true or he could not do his job.

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 08-08-2005 3:27 PM deerbreh has replied

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


Message 23 of 303 (231076)
08-08-2005 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by deerbreh
08-08-2005 3:20 PM


Absolutely false. Facts are facts and all oil exploration needs is those facts; the interpretation of how they got that way is completely irrelevant. You are begging the whole question of the flood debate. The fossils are sorted the way they're sorted, period, and they are useful for locating oil no matter what interpretation you use to explain why they are sorted that way. It makes no difference how old any of them are, all that matters for locating oil is that their locations are predictable. Their locations fit the Flood theory better than the evo theory according to many of us.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-08-2005 03:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2005 3:20 PM deerbreh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 08-08-2005 4:15 PM Faith has replied
 Message 26 by deerbreh, posted 08-08-2005 5:11 PM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 24 of 303 (231092)
08-08-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
08-08-2005 3:27 PM


But no one has ever been able to articulate what the geological column resulting from a worldwide flood would look like.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 08-08-2005 3:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Faith, posted 08-08-2005 4:35 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 25 of 303 (231105)
08-08-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by jar
08-08-2005 4:15 PM


Doesn't matter. That theory isn't needed either. All that's needed is to be able to fairly reliably associate relevant elements in the strata with the possibility of an oil pocket, and as a matter of fact I understand from a quick google that fossil identification isn't as important a factor in locating oil as other methods anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by jar, posted 08-08-2005 4:15 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 4:53 AM Faith has replied

deerbreh
Member (Idle past 2892 days)
Posts: 882
Joined: 06-22-2005


Message 26 of 303 (231114)
08-08-2005 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
08-08-2005 3:27 PM


Faith writes:
Their locations fit the Flood theory better than the evo theory according to many of us.
Well we will just have to agree to disagree on that and on whether it makes a difference because I am convinced otherwise on both points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 08-08-2005 3:27 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 27 of 303 (231226)
08-09-2005 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Faith
08-08-2005 4:35 PM


Oil exploration can be done by digging holes all over the place and hoping to hit something. A more profitable procedure is to employ geologists who can predict possible locations based on geologic information. That includes many things, but the one thing that remains true is the nature of the deposition.
There is no creationist geological theory for oil and its specific strata orientation with any solid model nor reasoning. If you can find it then present it, otherwise you need to admit that OE geological models are the best scientific explanations for oil, and for ways to find oil (barring more modern tech).
Yes people can find oil without the explanation, but then they do not do as well when limited to predictions based on well logs, except by saying God made the flood look like the earth was as old as OE geological theory predicts... and that is a very sad answer.
This is true even if one discards biogenic theories for oil production, and embrace abiogenic theories (a growing "controversy" in geology) which view certain sediments as better traps but the oil itself coming from sub-crust material converted by deep living bacteria.
And of course we can move on to other precious materials, such as diamonds. Can you tell how long they take to form and then rise to the surface, without the benefit of "insert miracle here"? How do geologists determine a likely place to find diamonds... could it be by age and nature of a structure?
This message has been edited by holmes, 08-09-2005 04:57 AM

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 25 by Faith, posted 08-08-2005 4:35 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 7:24 AM Silent H has replied

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


Message 28 of 303 (231249)
08-09-2005 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Silent H
08-09-2005 4:53 AM


There is no creationist geological theory for oil and its specific strata orientation with any solid model nor reasoning. If you can find it then present it, otherwise you need to admit that OE geological models are the best scientific explanations for oil, and for ways to find oil (barring more modern tech).
I don't think I understood a word you said in this post. I suspect you didn't address my point but it's very hard to tell. My point was that you don't need the theory, all you need is knowledge of the phenomena observed in the geological column from which you can make predictions. That is, you do not need to hold any views as to the great age of a stratum and its fossil contents or lack thereof, you simply need to know its predictable position in the column and its value for predicting the possible location of oil. Geologists are needed because they understand the lay of the land, but they would have this knowledge with or without OE terminology.
Yes people can find oil without the explanation, but then they do not do as well when limited to predictions based on well logs, except by saying God made the flood look like the earth was as old as OE geological theory predicts... and that is a very sad answer.
You appear to have utterly misunderstood my point. The theory of age is irrelevant, an unnecessary detour in the recognition of the structures involved in locating anything in the geo column.
This is true even if one discards biogenic theories for oil production, and embrace abiogenic theories (a growing "controversy" in geology) which view certain sediments as better traps but the oil itself coming from sub-crust material converted by deep living bacteria.
On my quick google of the subject I found that there are many indicators used in the location of oil deposits and that stratigraphy is just one and one that happens to be less in use than it used to be.
And of course we can move on to other precious materials, such as diamonds. Can you tell how long they take to form and then rise to the surface, without the benefit of "insert miracle here"? How do geologists determine a likely place to find diamonds... could it be by age and nature of a structure?
I have never ever appealed to "miracle" in any discussion of the Flood, ever. That straw man you are whipping must be in tatters from abuse by people who don't follow the argument.
"Age of a structure" is unknown, irrelevant, a superfluous bit of evo theory. What is needed is to recognize the structure itself, and its association with the likelihood of finding diamonds. Diamonds are formed under great pressure. Age is irrelevant beyond a certain minimum.
This message has been edited by Faith, 08-09-2005 08:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 4:53 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 08-09-2005 10:28 AM Faith has replied
 Message 43 by Silent H, posted 08-09-2005 12:26 PM Faith has replied

paisano
Member (Idle past 6422 days)
Posts: 459
From: USA
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 29 of 303 (231279)
08-09-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by AdminJar
08-08-2005 12:16 PM


Re: Can you add a link ...
The ICR site has an FAQ section that covers their views of how they define "Biblical creationism".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by AdminJar, posted 08-08-2005 12:16 PM AdminJar has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 303 (231304)
08-09-2005 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
08-09-2005 7:24 AM


"Age of a structure" is unknown, irrelevant, a superfluous bit of evo theory. What is needed is to recognize the structure itself, and its association with the likelihood of finding diamonds. Diamonds are formed under great pressure. Age is irrelevant beyond a certain minimum.
Once again you recommend "willfull ignorance". The geological column, the indicator fossils, should be studied and used however the question of age must be swept from everyones mind because it most definitely falsifies a Young Earth. It is not even 2 + 2 = 5 but rather 2 + 2 = an unknown value that must not be considered for no reason except to allow some folk to worship a book.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 7:24 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 08-09-2005 10:35 AM jar has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024