Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-17-2019 6:20 PM
23 online now:
edge, Faith, jar, JonF, ooh-child, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 16 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Happy Birthday: lopezeast0211
Post Volume:
Total: 856,881 Year: 11,917/19,786 Month: 1,698/2,641 Week: 207/708 Day: 34/40 Hour: 3/13


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
21Next
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 713
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 211 of 303 (243352)
09-14-2005 2:23 PM


There shouldn't be a conflict if YEC is right.
The way I see it is that if YEC is right then there must be evidence for all of its suppositions somewhere out there.

There should be no conflict at all between God's word and science. Science should simply confirm the bible.

If this is the case then where is the bias?

I say let's give a go. Set up a thread or even a whole forum where YEC is considered as a starting point and we investigate the evidence for and against certain parts of it. We just have to stop short of dismissing YEC altogether and find a better way that it could work.


DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2948 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 212 of 303 (243355)
09-14-2005 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Ben!
09-14-2005 1:59 PM


Ben writes:

Can you suggest another methodology that would work better for this problem?

Science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 1:59 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 3:04 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 213 of 303 (243356)
09-14-2005 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by DominionSeraph
09-14-2005 3:01 PM


...

Can you describe how science can be applied to YEC? If not, then suggesting using the scientific method is ... worthless.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-14-2005 3:01 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-14-2005 3:09 PM Ben! has responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2948 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 214 of 303 (243359)
09-14-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Ben!
09-14-2005 3:04 PM


Ben writes:

Can you describe how science can be applied to YEC?

Run the YEC hypothesis through the scientific method. The hypothesis will be falsified. Switch to a hypothesis that accounts for the evidence.

Pretty simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 3:04 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 3:34 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6693
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 215 of 303 (243365)
09-14-2005 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by Faith
09-13-2005 5:36 PM


Re: What's holding them up?
Hi, Faith.

I don't know what it would cost. It would depend on what type of genetic research on is doing. It costs next to nothing to breed Drosophila, for example, but if one wants to sequence genes then that would take some fancy equipment -- my guess is on the order of several tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars. Maybe Wounded King has an answer -- doesn't he do this sort of thing?

So, what type of genetics lab is needed? If genetics is going to confirm creationism, how deep into the subject does one need to go?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 5:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 216 of 303 (243369)
09-14-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by DominionSeraph
09-14-2005 3:09 PM


Doing empirical investigation with YEC FAITH
It's like pulling teeth. I'll try again.

Run the YEC hypothesis through the scientific method.

Take the flood hypothesis. How do we run it through the scientific method? I guess that would mean, take observations and see if they agree with there being a flood XXXX number of years ago?

The hypothesis will be falsified.

More technically correct would be to say "The hypothesis will be shown to be incompatable with current scientific theory." Anything else is too strong. We take it that current scientific theory tells us truth. The simple existence of "Occam's Razor" shows that that is not necessary; it's possible that more than one generalization can fit the same data.

Usually I wouldn't bother making this distinction, as it's usually fine to ignore this fact. Here, the distinction is critical, so we have to be precise where we normally can get away with sloppiness.

Switch to a hypothesis that accounts for the evidence.

Now... you need to start understanding that faith is not based on evidence.* To make such a suggestion is to fail to recognize something fundamental to a person in your community. If you were frustrated with your crying baby, I wouldn't suggest you to shoot it. I know that it's not an acceptable solution to you.

In the same way, demanding YECs to drop their faith is unreasonable. IN THAT LIGHT, how can a YEC proceed with science?

Normally, when applying the scientific method and developing theories, we build off of the theoretical work before us. Sometimes we don't; sometimes we fundamentally change paradigms. But by and large, we stick with the theories we have, in order to "see farther" by "standing on the shoulders of giants."

YECs ask to gather data from different sciences, in order to re-interpret them and investigate the possibility of there being other fundamental theorems that also explain the data. Reinterpretation of data is NOT fundamentally unscientific. You are right, there is a threat of "confirmation bias." It is up to the community to solve this, for those who do not have such a bias to review and comment on the theoretical work done.

The bottom line is, your suggestion doesn't work. If you accept the simple fact that faith is not based on evidence, then your suggestion doesn't work. Given that, I've laid out what I see as the clear consequences of that.

Can you give a suggestion that works with the knowledge that faith is not based on evidence?


*Clearly for some people, faith IS based on evidence. For those people, their faith changes when they apprehend science. I'm talking about those whose faith does NOT change DESPITE the fact that they've apprehended science. Clearly such people exist, and I submit that they are the ones which use "YEC methodology."

Edit: Changed subtitle to change the word "science" to "empirical investigation". I'm not interested in discussing labels.

This message has been edited by Ben, Wednesday, 2005/09/14 12:35 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-14-2005 3:09 PM DominionSeraph has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 3:41 PM Ben! has responded
 Message 223 by DominionSeraph, posted 09-14-2005 5:44 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 217 of 303 (243371)
09-14-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Ben!
09-14-2005 3:34 PM


Re: Doing empirical investigation with YEC FAITH
Are we just going to run in circles for 97 threads or are we going to put this concept of yours to the test?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 3:34 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 4:10 PM CK has responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 218 of 303 (243380)
09-14-2005 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by CK
09-14-2005 3:41 PM


Re: Doing empirical investigation with YEC FAITH
I'm trying to put it to the test in the IRH thread.

In the meantime, I'm trying to address people, individual by individual. If DS replies to posts without addressing arguments made earlier in the thread, then what can I do but repeat them and ask them to be responded to?

I'm workin on Jazzns in IRH's thread. I'm either going to get kicked out by IRH, Jazzns is going to get pissed off and refuse to do what I'm asking for, or Jazzns is going to do what I want. We'll see what happens.

By the way, I'm hoping that actually ACTIVELY looking for a solution is going to avoid having 97 geology threads that disintegrate into bickering over meta-issues. I want to see the ACTUAL issues, the EVIDENCE addressed. This is coming from somebody who is TIRED of having to sift through masses of pointless, repeated "discussion" when trying to keep track of posts 'cause he's an admin. I don't care about geology, I am not YEC. Just like you, I want to see some REAL debate. Or silence. Either one is fine by me, but let's try the "REAL debate" option first.

You have no idea how much I hate debating META issues like we are in this thread. I'm hoping to pay the cost up front so we reduce costs in the long run. I'm a practical guy; just ask my girlfriend.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 3:41 PM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 4:28 PM Ben! has responded
 Message 224 by Jazzns, posted 09-14-2005 5:47 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 219 of 303 (243392)
09-14-2005 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Ben!
09-14-2005 4:10 PM


You are setting yourself upto fail.
Then you will fail.

(put professional educator hat on) -

It is confusing and unhelpful to introduce rules or "ways of doing things" part of the way into an interaction, that is what you are trying to do there - it is a recipe for failure. The first post need to have those rules and the methodology in big letters(and will need repeating over the course of the thread).

I don't see why you want to hamstring yourself in such a fashion.

This message has been edited by CK, 14-Sep-2005 04:31 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 4:10 PM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 5:42 PM CK has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 32133
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 220 of 303 (243428)
09-14-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by jar
09-13-2005 5:44 PM


Pushing the continents apart
I've asked this of you before and just as with every other specific question you have simply never responded.

Perhaps this time it will be different.

Please explain the pulling apart mechanism that will produce what we see in the Appalachians.

It's not pulling-apart but pushing-apart as I see it. That is, the movement originates at the sea floor, in the Atlantic from the continental ridge outward to east and west. Magma rises at the ridge, pushing the earlier cooled magma away from the ridge. The whole thing is a pushing action outward, east and west from the north-south ridge. The continents are therefore PUSHED apart by this seafloor movement. I'm picturing some resistance of the continental mass at the beginning of the movement, exerting some counterforce to the spreading seafloor, and this is what would have buckled the mountains along the continental edges on both sides of the Atlantic.

Picture cooking something that forms a skin or crust if it's not stirred, like pudding or gravy. If you don't let it boil fully but let it bubble up here and there, wherever it bubbles up the skin is pushed outward away from the bubbling point, and what happens? -- the skin or crust buckles or ripples at the edge of the bubbling action. It's no perfect analogy of course, but it's in the ballpark of what I'm thinking of.

{Edit: OOPS. Off topic I just realized. Is it worth starting a new thread?}

This message has been edited by Faith, 09-14-2005 05:34 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 5:44 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by AdminBen, posted 09-14-2005 5:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 221 of 303 (243433)
09-14-2005 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by Faith
09-14-2005 5:30 PM


Re: Pushing the continents apart
{Edit: OOPS. Off topic I just realized.

Oh my. I may have actually gotten through to someone, sometime. Bestill my beating heart.

Is it worth starting a new thread?}

I'm SURE there's an existing thread where you can fit this in. If it's closed, do a quick request to the "Considerations..." thread, which (as always) you can link to below.


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

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 5:30 PM Faith has not yet responded

Ben!
Member (Idle past 1816 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 222 of 303 (243435)
09-14-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by CK
09-14-2005 4:28 PM


Re: You are setting yourself upto fail.
CK,

It's a good point. Thanks.

I'll ask for some suggestions in the admin forum. I want to run things by everybody there before putting this into action as an admin.

In the meantime, my first thought is that IRH's thread is similar, and will take up the focus for now. I think waiting until that thread finishes is better then. In the meantime, I can run this thing by adminland, and solidify everything behind the thoughts here via writing.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 4:28 PM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by CK, posted 09-14-2005 5:51 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 2948 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 223 of 303 (243437)
09-14-2005 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Ben!
09-14-2005 3:34 PM


Ben writes:

Take the flood hypothesis. How do we run it through the scientific method? I guess that would mean, take observations and see if they agree with there being a flood XXXX number of years ago?

Yup.

Ben writes:

More technically correct would be to say "The hypothesis will be shown to be incompatable with current scientific theory."

Nope. It's incompatible with what we observe. And the YEC hypothesis is obviously different than scientific theory, since the YEC hypothesis is not compatible with what we observe about reality, while scientific theory is.

Ben writes:

In the same way, demanding YECs to drop their faith is unreasonable.

As their faith is incompatible with reality, they must drop it if they want to reference reality.

Ben writes:

YECs ask to gather data from different sciences, in order to re-interpret them and investigate the possibility of there being other fundamental theorems that also explain the data.

I haven't seen anyone try to work on an underlying framework. The fact that their alternative explations are incompatible with each other, and incompatible with other evidence, seems to be a rather insurmountable obstacle.

Ben writes:

If you accept the simple fact that faith is not based on evidence, then your suggestion doesn't work.

I accept that, but all it means is that those who are talking about things they take on faith are talking out of their asses.

Ben writes:

Can you give a suggestion that works with the knowledge that faith is not based on evidence?

They add to their signature: "I am talking out of my ass."

This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 09-14-2005 05:45 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 3:34 PM Ben! has not yet responded

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 224 of 303 (243440)
09-14-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by Ben!
09-14-2005 4:10 PM


Re: Doing empirical investigation with YEC FAITH
I'm workin on Jazzns in IRH's thread. I'm either going to get kicked out by IRH, Jazzns is going to get pissed off and refuse to do what I'm asking for, or Jazzns is going to do what I want. We'll see what happens.

Maybe you should make it clearer in here in this thread where it is on topic exactly what it is you are wanting me to do. All I have done so far in IRH's thread is correct a missed fact. I am in no way impinging on Faith's ability to theorize about how the flood would create those structures. IN fact, in THIS entire thread I have been arguing that you little experiment should be allowed. It looks like it has been.

I want to see the ACTUAL issues, the EVIDENCE addressed.

The problem is that the discussion cannot get off the ground if the discussion participants cannot recognize the difference between what is evidence and what is theory. That is all I am trying to do there.

I have no interest in what Faith has to say about how those structures form just as long as the facts aren't reversed or ignored. The continents were pulled not pushed apart. This is non-negotiable and her theory that talks about that must explain HOW they were pulled apart.


No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 4:10 PM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 09-14-2005 6:10 PM Jazzns has responded

CK
Member (Idle past 2321 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 225 of 303 (243443)
09-14-2005 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Ben!
09-14-2005 5:42 PM


Re: You are setting yourself upto fail.
Don't get me wrong Ben - I think it's a great idea and I'd like to see it happen. I'm just doing the "drill sgt." bit.

Now get on the floor and give me 50 you dirty maggot!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Ben!, posted 09-14-2005 5:42 PM Ben! has not yet responded

RewPrev1
...
1314
15
1617
...
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019