|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith Science - Logically Indefensible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You've got to be kidding me. The fact that there is no evidence of such a worldwide flood became obvious to Christians over 150 years ago. In those days they had some pretty strange ideas about the flood that are not the same as YEC views now, and much easier for them to give up. It wasn't clear that the fossils were evidence for the flood for instance. Some believed God put them there as "sports" or something like that, just for fun. Some were looking for a single layer of sediment as evidence of the flood, and so are some still, rather than the entire geologic column which is far better evidence.
Note that the geologists at the time were nearly all 100% bible-believing Christians who fully believed the flood, and in light of the evidence, had to conclude that the flood of Noah must not have left any evidence. Yes, this is largely because of their inadequate ideas of what would constitute evidence for the flood. The Bible gives scanty information to work from, and it was far more taken for granted than it was thought through in scientific terms, so that it didn't take much to change their minds.
Perhaps the most famous realization was that of Sedgewick, who some consider the greatest geologist of all time, who was a solid Christian who finally stopped denying the evidence that no such flood ever happened. I'm sure I've read Sedgewick in my travels at EvC but I don't remember his reasoning and I don't want to risk checking a link yet. In a few days, however, I should have a working system again, though, and then I can track down anything I want. Is he the one who lost it over unconformities?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It wasn't clear that the fossils were evidence for the flood for instance. It still isn't. Until you can present a model that explains ALL of the fossil sorting, (something you have admitted in the past you cannot do) it is not evidence for the flood but rather evidence that refutes the myth.
Some were looking for a single layer of sediment as evidence of the flood, and so are some still, rather than the entire geologic column which is far better evidence. You keep asserting this but until you present a model that can explain what is seen, it is just more bull. When you present the model that explains what is seen I am sure that we will be interested, but right now you have NEVER presented such a model. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5820 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Yes, critical analysis of the approach would be on topic.
Maybe I was too longwinded, but the above is what I was trying to get at with my points. I was NOT trying to argue that the words of the Bible are not fact. I was juxtaposing the nature of the statements within the Bible, the potential sources of error, to those with regard to other historical people or scientific topics. Then raising the question of how they are analyzed, or should be analyzed in a consistent manner (if this is going to be scientific). My concluding point was to show that in the past Xian scientists changed their analysis of what is a statement of fact, vs allegory, based on comparison to physical data. If you still feel this is offtopic I will drop it, but I thought I was dealing specifically with assumed fact based on faith, vs assessing factual statements based on other sources as we do in other fields. holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
quote:That comment was not directed at you. quote:You're actually dealing with the approach that assumes fact based on faith. Reread the OP and keep your arguments in line with that.
Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position. Can a person of faith objectively analyze any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position? The originator says no based on his conclusion:
If someone has faith then they have 100% certainty If they have 100% certanty in something then anything that opposes that must logically be false no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.Any responses in this thread will receive a 24 hour Timout. Thank you --AdminPD
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: In those days they had some pretty strange ideas about the flood that are not the same as YEC views now, and much easier for them to give up. It wasn't clear that the fossils were evidence for the flood for instance. Some believed God put them there as "sports" or something like that, just for fun. Some were looking for a single layer of sediment as evidence of the flood, and so are some still, rather than the entire geologic column which is far better evidence. We're not here to argue the flood, but to explore the effect strongly held faith-based beliefs have upon objective assessment and analysis of evidence. Yes, we know you interpret the evidence differently. But do you see any significance in the fact that only those of a particular type of Christian belief interpret the evidence this way? To most people it is an obvious conclusion that since only fundamentalist Christians interpret the evidence in this particular manner, it must be their religious beliefs affecting their ability to examine and analyze evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I think that Faith is making a contribution - unintentionally. She's demonstrating the problem. She has made up her mind that the evidence must support the Flood and the fact that - excepting people with a strong religious belief in the Flood - the experts unaminously disagree - is just a sign that the experts are wrong. Even the fact that "Flood geology" can't explain the fossil record - or the fact that it can't even provide a way to identify rocks formed in the Flood other than assuming it - is ignored.
That's no way to do science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Creationist Science" is an oxymoron. It is logically impossible. If someone has faith then they have 100% certainty If they have 100% certanty in something then anything that opposes that must logically be false no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position. Science requires that objective conclusions be able to be made from physical evidence. Therefore "Creationist Science" is impossible. OK, I'm going to try this one more time. I'm arguing that creationist science is not impossible. Biblical creationists start from a few facts in the Bible. Whether this is scientific or not simply depends upon whether those facts are truly facts. If they are truly facts I'm sure that nobody would object to this as a starting point for science. There are many things that must be taken for granted in any pursuit of knowledge. Now, those who do not believe in the Bible reject the idea that the Bible's statements of fact are really fact. Again, this depends on whether they are really facts or not. Is it possible for people to disagree on what a fact is? In this case yes. And if E=MC2 is also a fact then it is possible in such cases too. In other words the Biblical facts may indeed be facts though only known to be so by some of us, just as E=MC squared may indeed be a fact known only to some. There is no obligation that I be able to prove that the Biblical facts are facts any more than those who understand Einstein's formula be able to prove it to me, for either of them to be actually facts. IF we are operating from facts, then reasoning from those facts is science. I know better than to try to make a case BASED on my belief in the Bible in the science forums. All I am doing here is challenging the OP's statement that our method of reasoning is by definition not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Biblical creationists start from a few facts in the Bible. Simply not true. There are no FACTS in the Bible. There are assertions, tales, stories, words, but no FACTS. You may belive something is historical, but the Bible story is no more a FACT than a similar tale from any other book unless there is some external evidence that supports it.
All I am doing here is challenging the OP's statement that our method of reasoning is by definition not science. It is NOT science. Until you are willing to hold the Garden of Eden, Biblical Creation, the Flood and all the other stories in the Bible tentatively, until you are not just will to discard those as explanations but actually eagerly and actively challenging them based on eternal evidence, Creation Science is not only not science, it is dishonest. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
And I'll argue that creation science is impossible.
Biblical creationists start from a few facts in the Bible. Whether this is scientific or not simply depends upon whether those facts are truly facts. can you give me a list of unquestionable facts in the bible, especially scientific facts? you don't start with facts in science. ever hear of the method? 1)observation--hey, if I do this, then this happens2)hypothesis--that happens because of x 3)testing--finding evidence for the x hypothesis 4)data--collect and organize your data. does it support x? 5)conclusion--if it does, good. If not, try again. Real world example1)hey, the sun and planets and starts appear to go around the earth 2)it does because the earth is at the center 3)find a pattern of movement, can it accurately predict future movement? 4)found a pattern, can make predictions 5)however, predictions were not accurate. we need to refine the prediction making process. science doesn't start with facts. Einstein sure as hell didn't start with E = mc2. That's part of one of his theories (or maybe it's on it's own, not sure). This theory is his interpretation of what the math was telling him about this phenomonen, and our work has solidified it. However, (if only slightly possible) he, and all of us, might have gotten this wrong. If those creationist scientists are starting with facts in the bible, then they've already screwed up--by starting with facts. Oh, and if you are trying to prove a fact, you are under the obligation to do so. no cop outs allowed. Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Faith writes: I'm arguing that creationist science is not impossible. I agree with you. And it is also not impossible that the sun truly does orbit the earth. But the currently available evidence does not support that view, and neither does it support the views of creation science.
Biblical creationists start from a few facts in the Bible. Can you name any other science (other than those whose objects of study are ancient texts) that starts with facts from a book? You're forgetting the definition of science. Science seeks natural explanations by gathering evidence through observation and experiment. It does not gather facts from revelatory texts, or any other texts. Science advances knowledge by studying and observing the natural world, and its facts do not originate from books. But facts are recorded in books, of course. Tycho Brahe accurately recorded the positions of many, many stars back in the 1500's, and I believe some astronomers have used his information to try to determine the rates of motion of the some of the nearer stars. Chinese astronomers recorded a supernova in 386 AD, thought to be pulsar in the constellation Sagittarius, and they recorded another in 1054 that we today call the Crab Nebula. So facts in books can be important to scientific studies. But facts recorded in books are not sacrosanct, and they still require corroboration. We know Tycho Brahe's data is correct because stars move slowly and as far as the naked eye can tell they haven't moved in 500 years, but I believe that by using telescopes astronomers have discovered some errors in Tycho Brahe's data. He was extremely good, amazingly good, especially given the primitive equipment he used, but he wasn't perfect. The Chinese supernova data also required corroboration. When telescopes were turned to the parts of the sky where the supernovas were reported, astronomers found a pulsar in one case and the crab nebula in the other, so we know their reports were true. In the same way, approaching the information in the Bible scientifically means seeking corroborating data. The Bible reports the fall of Jericho, and for many years this was doubted by some, but then Jericho was discovered with a charred layer of approximately the proper date, so the fall of Jericho has some corroborating support. The Bible also reports a temple in Jerusalem built in the time of Solomon, and I believe archeology also provided corroborating evidence for that. But the Bible also reports a worldwide flood in the time of Noah, and no evidence for it has ever been found. But we have to remember this thread isn't about the flood, it's about how creationists approach evidence and analysis. By putting the highest value on facts from a book rather than facts from the natural world they put the cart before the horse scientifically, so their approach to evidence is clearly backwards. The analysis and logic creationists apply to natural world evidence is such that only the fundamentalist Christian community accepts it. Their views are for the most part rejected by scientists of all other faiths, non-faiths and nationalities. In science, objectivity is attained when many people are able to repeat the same observations and/or experiments to yield data that leads to the same conclusions. The views of the various fields of science that are most frequently discussed at EvC Forum have all been objectively verified. Scientists from all religions and non-religions and nationalities accept these views as scientifically valid. Religion seeks insights through revelation and prayer. It is clear that creationism is religion because no one who did not use the Bible as a source would come to conclusions such as that the world's geology derived from a worldwide flood or that evolution is impossible. Even most scientists who do accept the Bible as a religious text and are familiar with its stories of the creation of kinds and of a worldwide flood do not look at the world and see any evidence supporting these stories. The creationist approach to science is not science. It cannot lead to valid conclusions because its most significant "facts" come from revelatory texts instead of from the natural world, and because creationists allow their interpretation of revelation to take precedence over natural evidence. With an ancient religious book miscast as a science text, it is no wonder that creationism reaches conclusions at odds with real evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I believe the flood is evident in the geo column and that will eventually be shown empirically.
The Bible is God's word, it is not "some book." Your not believing that makes no difference to whether or not its statements are facts. That was the point of my post. End of discussion. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Uh, Faith, nothing you said addressed the topic. We already know you believe in a worldwide flood and that the evidence supports that. We already know you believe the Bible is the Word of God and that it contains true facts about the way God created the world.
This thread is about how the creationist approach makes it impossible for them to objectively assess and analyze evidence to reach valid conclusions, indeed, even to make scientifically valid decisions about what constitutes evidence, as your repeatedly stated desire to use the Bible as scientific evidence makes clear. So if you'd like to make an on-topic reply then please address the points I made concerning the topic and concerning the invalidity of the creationist approach as science, instead of digressing into defenses of the flood and the Bible. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
If you look at the setup in the OP you will find that this thread isn't about whether the Bible is fact or fiction.
He's making a logic argument. To counter him, you need to show that his logic is flawed.
OP writes: If someone has faith then they have 100% certainty He hasn't specified faith in what. So the question is, if we have faith in something, does that mean 100% certainty (no doubt)? If no explain why, if yes, move on to the next premise.
OP writes: If they have 100% certanty in something then anything that opposes that must logically be false no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Now the question is, if we have 100% certainty (no doubt) in something, do we consider anything that opposes that certainty to be false no matter what evidence says otherwise? If no explain why, if yes, move on to the next premise.
OP writes: Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position. Now he puts it together. Personally, I don't like setups like this. They give me a headache. In reality, can he show that someone of faith has 100% certainty (no doubt)? I don't think so. Can he show that 100% certainty (no doubt) in something means that we consider anything that opposes it to be false despite the evidence? I don't know.
OP writes:
But do scientists actually function that way all the time? Probably not. Science requires that objective conclusions be able to be made from physical evidence. I don't think you can counter this because of the way it is set up. It isn't based on anything real. I don't know how one counters logic statements, that's why I don't like them. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I don't want to stay on this thread. I only want to make the general point that if we are working from facts, whether others recognize them as facts or not, that's scientific. Specifically in response to the OP my answer is that sometimes we don't deal appropriately with evidence claims because of our different premises from those that guide evolutionists, but that that's simply a mistake we are likely to make. I would think that would cover my position without getting into the details.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
My computer is freezing up more and more frequently. I don't think I'll have time to think through your post. What I'm going to do is post this much so I won't lose it, and then do an edit to see if I can address your points.
If you look at the setup in the OP you will find that this thread isn't about whether the Bible is fact or fiction. It's about faith and I'm arguing in rebuttal basically that faith in the Bible's statement of facts is as good as having facts, which is perfectly scientific. However, I will consider the rest of your points. Let me get all the way to the bottom edit by edit before considering this post finished.
He's making a logic argument. To counter him, you need to show that his logic is flawed.
OP writes: If someone has faith then they have 100% certainty He hasn't specified faith in what. So the question is, if we have faith in something, does that mean 100% certainty (no doubt)? If no explain why, if yes, move on to the next premise. It needs some sharpening up as a logic statement, but I took it simply to mean what I'm basically arguing, for instance, that I do have 100% certainty in the facts given in the Flood story -- more like 99% since I could change my mind about what the passage says -- I'm merely insisting that faith in the Bible is as good as having facts.
OP writes: If they have 100% certanty in something then anything that opposes that must logically be false no matter what the evidence to the contrary. Now the question is, if we have 100% certainty (no doubt) in something, do we consider anything that opposes that certainty to be false no matter what evidence says otherwise? If no explain why, if yes, move on to the next premise. Yes, if I have 100% certainty in the Biblical account of the Flood -- it's more like 99% since it's possible to show me how to read it differently -- then of course everything that opposes it is false, and the evidence is simply wrong or misinterpreted, and since it is we have the job of showing that.
OP writes: Therefore any person of faith is logically unable to objectively analyse any theory or evidence that directly opposes their faith based position. Now he puts it together. Personally, I don't like setups like this. They give me a headache. I just took it straight myself, though supplying the specific example of faith in the flood. His conclusion from his premises is, however, false. There is no problem at all objectively analyzing evidence against a known fact. We analyze it objectively as false or misinterpreted. We will no doubt need to argue for what the evidence DOES in fact show, if we have enough knowledge to do that, and that's the creativity of creation science.
In reality, can he show that someone of faith has 100% certainty (no doubt)? I don't think so. That's where he needed to specify WHAT faith is in. I avoided that problem by choosing faith in the truth of the Biblical flood. There is a sense in which none of us has 100% faith in God because that's an active thing and we often betray a sense of distrust, but the sense in which I believe the Bible is the truth as written is close to 100%, leaving room for some different ways of reading parts of it. But your general point is right and he needs to have been more specific about the object of faith.
Can he show that 100% certainty (no doubt) in something means that we consider anything that opposes it to be false despite the evidence? I don't know. Well, that is a logical point though, and I agree with him if I understand "despite the evidence" to mean that I simply regard the supposed evidence as false, as not supporting what it is supposed to support, or simply a misinterpretation. When he says "despite the evidence" he's begging the question, assuming the evidence IS evidence. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024