|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC approaches to empirical investigation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Deleted - Life is just too short to get into this tail-chasing.
This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 10:59 AM This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 10:59 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No Faith. I offered no conclusion. I simply outlined the question.
If would like to put forth a conclusion and how the issue I outlined could be understood, please do so. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh wow, thanks but no thanks for THAT, Ben. I see no data other than the actual data that science has produced, and no YEC works from anything but that data. What causes the conflict is our premise that the Bible is God's word, and you can't solve this conflict by asserting that this is something we simply believe against evidence. Sorry, it IS God's word, it is not a figment of our imagination. What you are asking Nuggin to accept is NOT what I believe. Sorry, you are making a heroic effort but it's not doing me any favors in the end.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I disagree. This is (approximately) how some forensic science works. You have some data, and you have a known conclusion. You work at determining what's in between. I think this might be erroneous. Forensics don't start with a known conclusion. Example: We have a dead body, that is our data. We need to come to the conclusion as to how that body died. If there are stab wounds, we might assume the person we stabbed, but we have to test that...a post mortem to detect if the body was alive when the stabs were inflicted, maybe there is poison in the system (or poisson, if they were alergic to sea food), water in the lungs, blood spattering on the walls etc etc etc. The difference is that forensics can examine the physical evidence to come to the conclusions. With the flood we have only anecdotal evidence, and no physical evidence. Actually we have physical evidence but it doesn't seem support the conclusion, so either there is a problem with the evidence, the method for interpreting the evidence or there is a problem with the conclusion. Since the evidence and the method have done well at predicting and explaining in the past, the general consensus is to reject the conclusion that there was a flood. Science assumes a conclusion, just like with the flood. But it differs in that it then asks 'if our conclusion (hypothesis) is true, what would we expect to find, what do we find and does what we find contradict our hypothesis'. Science says that if the evidence contradicts the hypothesis, the hypothesis is the most likely thing to be wrong. Faith says that if the evidence contradicts the conclusion (eg flood), then the evidence (edit: or its interpretation) is wrong. No questions. This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-12-2005 10:03 AM This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 12-September-2005 04:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Jar,
This is from your own perspective. Of course it doesn't make sense to you. This is a strawman of Faith's position. Let me try to put it this way. From a non-believer's perspective, what's going on here has less to do with reality and more to do with what's in Faith's head. You may not like it, but those are the facts. You may not like it, but it doesn't change. You may not like it, but it doesn't mean you can characterize her approach like this. Data is data. Faith is faith. Gut is gut. You can try to change her faith, but until it changes (and yes, it may not), these are the facts. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4148 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Yes I think she is. Well he asked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Nuggin,
Take it somewhere else, would you? Half of your comments do nothing to further a thread. You may as well just post nothing and have in your signature "I'm Nuggin, and I like to parody YECs". At least I wouldn't have to bother reading this over and over. Add value.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Oh, I understand her position completely. And I am willing to give her every opportunity to support her position. see Message 14
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Faith's looking at data. It's data in her mind, and you need to understand that. You can't force somebody to take your own viewpoint Nuggin. You can disagree with Faith, but at least take the time to understand and accept.
Believe me, I've given up on that insanity. What I am saying is that the data "there is a dead guy" is not the problem. The problem is that YECs have a conclusion "this guy was murdered" before doing the work answering the question "how did this guy die". It may very well be that in some cases the dead guy was in fact murdered. It's also possible that in some cases the guy died of natural causes. But, because the conclusion, "this guy was murdered" was set in stone before the "investigation" began, it's the only possible outcome. Do you want to live in a society where that's the rule of law? Want to be on trial for murdering your 105 year old grandmother with a magic heart attack gun while she slept?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Sorry, it IS God's word, it is not a figment of our imagination. What you are asking Nuggin to accept is NOT what I believe. Sorry, you are making a heroic effort but it's not doing me any favors in the end. Faith, You have to be able to take Nuggin's perspective as well. From Nuggin's perspective, it IS a figment of your imagination. I'm not interested in judging "truth". The point is to be able to accept somebody else's viewpoint. I'm not trying to tell people that your views are figments of your imagination. I'm trying to instruct people how to understand your point of view, from THEIR point of view. I'm trying to work with each person's faith, as it were. I think I didn't convey that well to Nuggin. I did a better job conveying it to Jar I think. Just like others aren't going to convince you that your faith is wrong and yours is right, you're not going to convince others that their faith is wrong and yours is right. I ask of you only what I ask of everybody else. Ben
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think you're giving Faith too much credit by assuming that her presentation of her position is accurate. People like Faith start not with a belief in God but a belief in the doctrines of their Church - and they hold that even God is subject to those beliefs. They may not admit to it - not even to themselves. But that is the core of their beleif.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The key point is to have good alternative explanations. If YECs could present any such explanations, then they would be listened to. But as hard as people have tried, and they really did try, the reality of the universe is such that every explanation so far has failed. Just as you claim to "resolve" the conflict by strawmanning your opponent's premise, you now simply assert the prejudice of the science premise against the excellent interpretations creationists have come up with. This is an endless frustration for creationists. And it's all because it is ONLY a battle of plausibilities and the Establishment is used to thinking along the lines of their own favorites and they've got the power so they win. There's nothing objective about it. Evos can always find this or that interpretation of a particular facet of the problem to apparently show that the creationist view of the geological column for instance, has to be wrong, but in doing that they simply ignore and override the many many OTHER explanations of creationists that DO work for OTHER facets of the problem. But I say this only to give an idea of what I mean, not because I want to get into this dispute here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
It's just to push others to try and take your perspective. What you are suggesting in downright insulting. You think that since Faith can't do science, then scientists should try to look at it from her point of view. We have. We understand what she's saying. We just KNOW that she's wrong. If she can KNOW that she's right, then we can KNOW that she's wrong. It's a non-starter, sure. But that's the end of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think you're giving Faith too much credit by assuming that her presentation of her position is accurate. People like Faith start not with a belief in God but a belief in the doctrines of their Church - and they hold that even God is subject to those beliefs. They may not admit to it - not even to themselves. But that is the core of their beleif. This is false. My premise is the Bible itself, God's word. Despite all the claims that it is so ambiguous that all I'm arguing from is my own interpretation of it, in fact it is quite clear. The Flood is presented as a historical fact. There is nothing about the way it is written that suggests anything else, and what it says is quite clear about how it happened.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1419 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Do you want to live in a society where that's the rule of law? Want to be on trial for murdering your 105 year old grandmother with a magic heart attack gun while she slept? It's a good question; I think this belongs in the thread about governement and science. The fact is, though, you live in a society with people who have beliefs, non-empirical thoughts. Nobody's asking you to accept the stuff into the law in this thread, I'm asking you to accept their right to have a perspective, to proceed in their investigation, and to characterize it as it is.
The problem is that YECs have a conclusion "this guy was murdered" before doing the work answering the question "how did this guy die". Still from your perspective. The closest I can change this into the YEC perspective is, they know the guy was murdered before they can show it with evidence. Somehow they have special access to "truth" that transcends empricism. You're missing that part of the perspective. You're working from a purely empirical perspective--that's your own.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024