Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 12:54 AM
21 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (3 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,116 Year: 12,152/19,786 Month: 1,933/2,641 Week: 442/708 Day: 1/135 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
21NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 31 of 303 (242489)
09-12-2005 11:15 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.

Well... let me say it like this. Regardless of the origin of her position, whether it's a faith in God, a faith in the Bible, or a faith in what her church says... it doesn't ultimately change the form of what she's doing. She has faith. And the faith provides basically a data point for her.

Yes, a data point that others don't recognize. Yes, a data point that is not empirical. But it acts like a data point. Those are the facts.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:08 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 689 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 32 of 303 (242490)
09-12-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:02 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
You can try to change her faith, but until it changes (and yes, it may not), these are the facts.

I'm speaking for Jar here, but I really don't believe that anyone here is trying to "change Faith".

What we are doing is a two pronged approach.

1) We are trying to show to the spectators that Faith is arguing a fantasy.

2) We are trying to stop people like Faith from destroying the education system in America.

If Faith never changes her mind, it doesn't change either of those two goals


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 36 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:19 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:32 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 33 of 303 (242491)
09-12-2005 11:16 AM


Crap it's like it's raining out here. Who can keep up?

It's like I just got caught outside in a sudden hailstorm, and I can't find a tree or house to duck under.

Haha


Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 11:42 AM Ben! has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 689 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 34 of 303 (242492)
09-12-2005 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:03 AM


Re: I don't buy it
Just because you disagree with me doesn't me my comment doesn't have value. I am not parodying the YEC view.

You are trying to present their view in a certain (false) light.

You honestly expect us to believe that your version of the YEC is correct when it's nothing like the one they are presenting? Come on.

Present something close to what they are saying and we'll have a concensus, but you're just falsifying things to try and paint them in a good light.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:03 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:38 AM Nuggin has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15214
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 35 of 303 (242493)
09-12-2005 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
09-12-2005 11:12 AM


No, it's true. I've never run into an inerrantist who didn't put their personal beliefs before the Bible.

You yourself won't allow that God's relationship to the Bible could be anything other than the one you have decided. The Bible doesn't say that God wrote the flood story. You say that. You're quite prepared to dictate what God did or did not do, without God having iny say in the matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:12 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:26 AM PaulK has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 36 of 303 (242494)
09-12-2005 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 11:16 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
1) We are trying to show to the spectators that Faith is arguing a fantasy.

2) We are trying to stop people like Faith from destroying the education system in America.

I'm cool with that. I don't think it needs to be brought into every discussion, though. We do have to live with each other. My goal is to provide a way to do that without the constant bickering and invading of each others' space.

Yes, I know many religious people are evangelistic. It doesn't make it OK to do as well. Let's keep our own beliefs and judgements in our own backyards and in our own communities. No matter who we are.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:16 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

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

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32177
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 37 of 303 (242495)
09-12-2005 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:08 AM


Re: Forensic Science
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.

Nuggin's viewpoint is just the usual here at EvC. I've done my best with it. I've even capitulated to it at times. No more. What I laid out on IRH's thread about my terms, respect for my YEC premise, is IT for me. EvC denies it and it's time that's faced. Nuggin is just one more on that side of the argument, there's nothing more to understand. For them science trumps God, for me God trumps science. The fact is that the YEC premise is rejected at EvC and it is therefore a sham to pretend that debate is possible.

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.

Well if you want them to understand my point of view they have to understand that it is that God Himself has spoken, and I'm not looking for a dead child I mistakenly believe to be alive.

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.

Exactly what I've said. This is an unresolvable conflict, and here at EvC what that means is that debating it is impossible as the deck is stacked against creationists. Either my premise is accommodated as stated, without requiring me to capitulate to THEIR premise at the get-go or there is nothing more to discuss. There's really nothing more to say.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:08 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:46 AM Faith has responded
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 12:07 PM Faith has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 689 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 38 of 303 (242497)
09-12-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:12 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Nobody's asking you to accept the stuff into the law in this thread

What?! Hello? Have you even heard of Kansas? They very specifically are asking us to accept into law their perspective on religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:12 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:26 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 39 of 303 (242498)
09-12-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:19 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
Ben - it's a nice idea it's just not going to happen.

A Criminologist may perfectly well understand the viewpoint of a murderer and how he constructs his reality but that does not mean that the criminologist is going to feel that viewpoint is valid or say to people "well it's horseshit of course".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:19 AM Ben! has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 40 of 303 (242499)
09-12-2005 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Modulous
09-12-2005 11:01 AM


Re: Forensic
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'.

This is the scientific method, this is experimental science. I totally agree that what Faith is doing CANNOT be characterized as experimental science.

I think this might be erroneous. Forensics don't start with a known conclusion. Example: We have a dead body, that is our data.

I think this is just an argument of words and labelling then. "Conclusion" means, "the final end point." In forensics and in Faith's investigation, it's a chronological investigation. And in both cases, you basically have the information that anchors your investigation as data. In experimental science, you don't have that.

If you call a dead body just data, then you might as well call "the flood happened" data from Faith's perspective. I call it the "conclusion" because I think it's a little more than just data. It's the critical data that anchors the entire investigation.

I do appreciate your approach of analysis though. Keep working with me to see if we can straighten this out. It's possible I'm wrong... but I don't think so :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 11:01 AM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 11:28 AM Ben! has responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 41 of 303 (242503)
09-12-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Nuggin
09-12-2005 11:22 AM


Re: Forensic Science
If anybody from Kansas came on my thread and started talking about that stuff, I'd get in admin mode and suspend them.

Nobody's asking you to accept the stuff into the law in this thread

There's a time and place for every discussion. This thread is not about it threats to get things in the school system. I suggested a thread where I thought it would be appropriate to address that issue. There are lots of threads like that, it doesn't have to be that one. Just, I'm sure it's not the issue of THIS thread.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Nuggin, posted 09-12-2005 11:22 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 32177
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 42 of 303 (242504)
09-12-2005 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by PaulK
09-12-2005 11:18 AM


Your opinion is not relevant here. If my premise, the YEC premise, is only going to be discounted and disrespected as it is here, and that's all you are doing, then the claim to debate with YECs is a sham. You've made up your mind at the outset and the rest is just window dressing.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:18 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 11:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2324 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 43 of 303 (242505)
09-12-2005 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:24 AM


Re: Forensic
But the dead body IS just data rather than the conclusion (or rather our tests upon the body provide our data). The conclusion is what we reach from putting together our data.

"This is a dead body" is not a conclusion - it is a starting point (and what that is offered further context by it's surroundings, the location of other people etc)

"white male 6"2 12 stone, toxicology work shows traces of..." is getting nearer to a conclusion.

Frankly your answers seem to be throwing darkness over the issue rather than any light or is that just me :)

This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 11:29 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:24 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:32 AM CK has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 44 of 303 (242506)
09-12-2005 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
09-12-2005 11:07 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
Cool. Let's see if Faith can pull it off. She has a HUGE weight on her shoulders--she has to reformulate science... herself. It's a tall order for anybody to do. There's a lot of data out there.

But that's what she has to do. It's the only way to proceed when you take on her perspective. So, the choices are.. either treat her as crazy for believing in the Flood, or believe she's doing the only thing she can. Hammering on her methodology is silly. It's the most ... valid method to follow, given the specific unquestionable base she's working on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 11:07 AM jar has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1818 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 45 of 303 (242509)
09-12-2005 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by CK
09-12-2005 11:28 AM


Re: Forensic
Frankly your answers seem to be throwing darkness over the issue rather than any light or is that just me :)

Good feedback. I may be taking a non-standard viewpoint or vocabulary with regards to forensic science. I don't even watch CSI...

I'll think about what you're saying. I'll try to reformulate my thoughts given your ... schema.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 11:28 AM CK has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
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