Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-18-2019 7:52 PM
25 online now:
edge, jar, Jon, Louis Morelli (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Post Volume:
Total: 856,973 Year: 12,009/19,786 Month: 1,790/2,641 Week: 299/708 Day: 74/52 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
CK
Member (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 16 of 303 (242466)
09-12-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:54 AM


Re: Forensic Science
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:54 AM Ben! has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31070
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 17 of 303 (242468)
09-12-2005 11:00 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
09-12-2005 10:55 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 10:55 AM Faith has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 18 of 303 (242469)
09-12-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:54 AM


Re: Forensic Science
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:54 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:08 AM Faith has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 299 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 19 of 303 (242471)
09-12-2005 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


Forensic
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 9:55 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:24 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 20 of 303 (242473)
09-12-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
09-12-2005 10:44 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:44 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 11:07 AM Ben! has responded
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:16 AM Ben! has responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 21 of 303 (242474)
09-12-2005 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:57 AM


quote:
I'm sure everybody will enjoy my next thread, in which I compare you to a schizophrenic and ask if you should be considered mentally ill.

Yes I think she is.

Well he asked.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:57 AM Ben! has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 22 of 303 (242476)
09-12-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 10:52 AM


Re: I don't buy it
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 10:52 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:18 AM Ben! has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 31070
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 23 of 303 (242477)
09-12-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:02 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:02 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:30 AM jar has not yet responded

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 24 of 303 (242478)
09-12-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:54 AM


Re: Forensic Science
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:54 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:12 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 25 of 303 (242480)
09-12-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Faith
09-12-2005 11:01 AM


Re: Forensic Science
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:01 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:20 AM Ben! has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15209
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 26 of 303 (242481)
09-12-2005 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:57 AM


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 message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:57 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:12 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 31 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:15 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 27 of 303 (242482)
09-12-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
09-12-2005 10:56 AM


Re: Believe it or not ...
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 10:56 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 687 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 28 of 303 (242484)
09-12-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:57 AM


Why should we?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:57 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32153
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 29 of 303 (242485)
09-12-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by PaulK
09-12-2005 11:08 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:08 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:18 AM Faith has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1817 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 30 of 303 (242486)
09-12-2005 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 11:07 AM


Re: Forensic Science
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:07 AM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:22 AM Ben! has responded
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:39 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Prev1
2
3456
...
21NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019