Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-23-2019 2:04 PM
33 online now:
dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, ramoss, ringo, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (10 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,123 Year: 5,160/19,786 Month: 1,282/873 Week: 178/460 Day: 23/97 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
20NextFF
Author Topic:   YEC vs. EVO presuppositions / methodology
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 300 (262168)
11-21-2005 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by AdminRandman
11-21-2005 8:15 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Just as long as you hold Faith to the same standard.

But I will abide.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by AdminRandman, posted 11-21-2005 8:15 PM AdminRandman has not yet responded

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 47 of 300 (262169)
11-21-2005 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by randman
11-21-2005 7:00 PM


Re: technology levels
No film at 11?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 7:00 PM randman has not yet responded

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 300 (262170)
11-21-2005 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by berberry
11-21-2005 8:21 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
Science does not presuppose anything. Everything is testable.

I suppose it presupposes the validity of the scientific method.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 8:21 PM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Nighttrain, posted 11-21-2005 8:37 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2102 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 49 of 300 (262174)
11-21-2005 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by robinrohan
11-21-2005 8:29 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
I suppose it presupposes the validity of the scientific method.

Probably true, originally, but the success of millions of experiments and applications surely validates the approach?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by robinrohan, posted 11-21-2005 8:29 PM robinrohan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Ben!, posted 11-21-2005 8:42 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1730 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 50 of 300 (262175)
11-21-2005 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Nighttrain
11-21-2005 8:37 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
Probably true, originally, but the success of millions of experiments and applications surely validates the approach?

Define success, and define what the approach is being used for.

I'd say that the scientific method has been shown to be useful for generating an ability to produce models that allow for refinement, allow us to manipulate our world and create tools. In other words, it's been shown to be useful.

Anything outside of that? I'd be interested to see your viewpoint on it.

Ben


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Nighttrain, posted 11-21-2005 8:37 PM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 51 of 300 (262180)
11-21-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by berberry
11-21-2005 8:21 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
Gravity and science are not the same thing. Any form of testing involves some presuppositions. Robinrohan is correct in stating that the validity of the scientific method is a presupposition, and incidentally a flawed one.

The scientific method is dependant on technology which gives us the abilty to test for things. So the scientific method is less than valid when there is a lack of technology.

That doesn't mean it is not a good tool, but it does mean science should not form the entirety for the basis of one's beliefs since science is so limited.

Getting back to gravity, I don't think we have been able to test gravity directly in the sense of observing gravity waves or whatever causes gravity.

On the subject of presuppositions, there are always a lot of them involved in analysis. For example, most data is analyzed with the belief that the past is non-changing, but that may or may not be true.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 8:21 PM berberry has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 8:58 PM randman has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 300 (262185)
11-21-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by randman
11-21-2005 8:46 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
I don't think we have been able to test gravity directly in the sense of observing gravity waves or whatever causes gravity.

You didn't pick this up from Wheeler? Mass causes gravity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 8:46 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 9:01 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3008 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 53 of 300 (262188)
11-21-2005 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 8:58 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
Direct observation? We know mass is related to gravity, and maybe gravity waves have been discovered. I have heard it both ways, but we don't know how, presumably, mass causes gravity, do we?

What's the mechanism involved?

Edit to add, Crash, on second thought, this is really off-topic, have to correct myself here.

This message has been edited by AdminRandman, 11-21-2005 09:02 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 8:58 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by berberry, posted 11-21-2005 10:02 PM randman has responded

Iblis
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 54 of 300 (262204)
11-21-2005 9:12 PM


it presupposes the validity of the scientific method

No, it demonstrates the validity of the scientific method over and over again.

In the last version of this thread you guys seemed to be getting close to some important stuff, but then it turned into a debate about how much stuff one can conceivably pile into a "different debating styles" excuse. Honestly, it is semantics that have gone wrong, yes, but not some crappy semantics where if I just chose the word you like you would agree with me of the sort favored by con artists. Actual real vocabulary needs to be reimagined.

Faith I am going to borrow your archaeology analogy to try to help with this boggle. Heinrich Schliemann had an Idea, the idea was that the fabulous prehistorical grandeur of Ancient Greece as recorded in Homer wasn't just the moonshine and superstition that modern science by his time had definitively "proven" it to be. But that wasn't his Theory, not yet. It wasn't even his Hypothesis, or he would have had to set out to disprove it.

His initial Hypothesis had to be something like, to test the idea that "there is little hope of finding treasure by digging in secondary local candidates for mythological cities." *wink wink* He can explain that he's a scientist, and all scientific theories eventually get disproven. And the fact that he was able to fund such ventures is a tentative, preliminary indication that will be a good theory to test throroughly. Finding all that freaking treasure though, that is really the great conclusive disproof.

Then the scientist modifies that theory. Perhaps it is that "these very primitive ruins of people who can't seem to work any metal but gold and use pictograms to communicate are all the foundation there is to Homer's work." A bit more digging disproves that one, as well. Slowly but surely the hypotheory is modified, always in the direction of the Idea, until progress seems to stop. Then find another place to dig.

So the Flood or the Fall can never be a theory for the fundamentalist, because they don't care to work to disprove it. They have to pick some piece of common knowledge that is actually shaky and test it empirically, that's what science can do. If they get results, it will move human knowledge in the direction they want to go. If they don't, no harm done, pick another suspicious postulate somewhere and see if it will push over.

But the problem with doing this is that you will sound like a real flake, you will sound like that Jonah guy who wanted to share how a man could fit into a whale just fine. The only difference between you and that guy, from the viewpoint of normal uninterested observers, is how professional you look and act.

Von Daniken is a great example. He looks just like Schliemann to the casual audience listening to the pitch. But if you come from any kind of decent academic background (never left school) then you can see the difference already right then! You have inside information, as it were, it's obvious to you. Schliemann digs, Von Daniken tours. Schliemman is an archaeology guy who knows some marketing, Von Daniken is a marketing guy who knows some archaeology.

Eventually though, the regular masses can tell the difference too. Von Daniken is lying, because he has never produced any actual alien treasure. He should shut up.

Now I realize nobody here is going to actually go dig. If you were, we wouldn't still be looking for Noah's ark. All we need is a large 3-story wooden structure suitable for stabling animals. Any 3 story stable will do, they make things like that in the ancient world out of wood, this isn't rocket science. But no, we are going to do Einsteinian "thought experiments" here on the net and then see how plausible they sound.


Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 11:21 PM Iblis has not yet responded

berberry
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 300 (262211)
11-21-2005 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by randman
11-21-2005 9:01 PM


Re: Reiteration: This is not a debate
Oh hell no it's not off-topic. This is directly related to the topic. Theory of gravity is only being used as a example to illustrate a point that is essential to the topic. Nothing off-topic about it.


"We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job. That's what I'm telling you."-George W. Bush, Gulfport, Miss.,
Sept. 20, 2005.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 9:01 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 11-21-2005 11:36 PM berberry has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 56 of 300 (262220)
11-21-2005 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by crashfrog
11-21-2005 8:06 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Well you've sunk to personal remarks and I lose interest at that point. Also my defense that the God of the universe has the right to judge science IS a defense and Evos do treat science as their unquestionable premise, the position from which everything is judged and judgeable. We can debate the premises elsewhere, yes, but that is not the point. They are nonnegotiable premises. I'm not interested in what individuals may think, as there are shades and degrees on both sides of the argument. So if you think you could entertain the idea that God trumps science (?) -- the point is that the Evo side of this argument does take a hard line on science as their given.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 8:06 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 11-21-2005 11:14 PM Faith has responded
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 11-21-2005 11:31 PM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 57 of 300 (262221)
11-21-2005 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
11-21-2005 10:44 PM


So convince us
So if you think you could entertain the idea that God trumps science (?)

Convince us.

Provide the evidence.

edited to fix sub-title

This message has been edited by jar, 11-21-2005 10:20 PM


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 10:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 11:30 PM jar has responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 58 of 300 (262223)
11-21-2005 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Iblis
11-21-2005 9:12 PM


Finding something you know is there is the YEC model
The archaeology model was proposed as a better model for YEC thinking than the forensics model Ben had proposed, that is all. We don't have to get all perfectionistic about making it fit. It merely says that rather than start from "data" as Ben had proposed, we start from what the Bible tells us happened. We are not trying to fit in with science. We are trying to define the DIFFERENT approach of YECs which Ben has found to have a validity that usually goes unrecognized by the science sticklers. The Fall or the Flood are not a Theory but a GIVEN, that is what I have been saying. That is how a YEC takes it. These are NONNEGOTIABLES. We don't care if "Science" doesn't proceed this way. It MUST proceed this way with anything that is known to have existed but where and how is not known.

OK, try a similar model to make the point clearer. Say we know that a hundred years ago a ship of a certain type sank in a certain area. This is a known, there is no doubt about it. Or a WWI plane went down in a certain region. There was a steamboat that went down in the Missouri River about 150 years ago and they had to reconstruct the changing course of the river over that period of time in order to find it. But they found it. A city that has been buried for a millennium or more is the same model merely removed farther back in time.

Finding these things, starting from the knowledge that they occurred, IS science. And it is a decent model of how YECs proceed.

Please let us stay focused on the objective of defining the YEC methodology in order to illuminate what YECs and other creationists experience as a stacked deck against us here at EvC.

(The YEC position is the only one that reads Genesis as straight history, so I'm not sure how far the methods I'm spelling out work for other kinds of creationism, but I've ONLY been referring to YEC.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Iblis, posted 11-21-2005 9:12 PM Iblis has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30962
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 59 of 300 (262224)
11-21-2005 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by jar
11-21-2005 11:14 PM


Re: So convince us
Follow the conversation, jar, I was responding to something crashfrog said and said it appeared to be individual with him and not representative of the EvC assumption.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 11-21-2005 11:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by jar, posted 11-21-2005 11:41 PM Faith has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 300 (262225)
11-21-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
11-21-2005 10:44 PM


Re: Maybe should have been a PNT, sorry
Well you've sunk to personal remarks and I lose interest at that point.

Then why did you make it personal?

Also my defense that the God of the universe has the right to judge science IS a defense

No, it's just a restatement of your premise. You need to support your premise with argumentation supporting the idea that there is a God, that he's the author of the Bible, and that his intent for Genesis is as a literal history.

Or, don't support those things. But don't claim to be defending your premises when all you're doing is restating them.

They are nonnegotiable premises.

The fact that you frame the discussion this way proves to me that you already recognize the inherent unsupportability of your premises; you know that there's no way you could successfully support them with argumentation and evidence.

Take them on faith, if you like; no skin off my nose. But don't insist that we accept them the same way, or complain when we don't. You're not willing to do what it takes to convince us or defend your position. What right do you have to complain when we simply point that out?

the point is that the Evo side of this argument does take a hard line on science as their given.

But we don't take it as a given; that's a conclusion that we support with evidence and argumentation. We've succesfully defended that position against all challenge. It's not simply accepted without question; it's a position that has stood the test of evidence and debate.

Something that your position has never been able to do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 10:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 11:33 PM crashfrog has responded
 Message 95 by Faith, posted 11-22-2005 10:42 AM crashfrog has responded

Prev123
4
56
...
20NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019