Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith's Participation in EvC
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 6 of 285 (354080)
10-04-2006 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NosyNed
10-04-2006 2:05 AM


Don't ban Faith - she's a star!
To do so would make a mockery of the supposed purpose of this forum.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NosyNed, posted 10-04-2006 2:05 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 230 of 285 (354859)
10-06-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by iano
10-06-2006 3:58 PM


Iano writes:
Creationists are entitled to believe the flood happened and then go about making an empirical case for it just like any scientist must. They are allowed to compete with alernative views based on the evidence.
Unfortunately they are unable to make a scientific case because there is no empirical evidence to support their claims.
It's really as simple as that.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 3:58 PM iano has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 231 of 285 (354860)
10-06-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by iano
10-06-2006 4:02 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
Iano writes:
Is Faith permitted to state her belief that the flood happened in fact and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way?
Faith can state her HYPOTHESIS that the flood MAY have happened and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 4:02 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Brad McFall, posted 10-06-2006 5:36 PM RickJB has replied
 Message 249 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 8:45 PM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 237 of 285 (354876)
10-06-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Brad McFall
10-06-2006 5:36 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
Brad writes:
Are you not suggesting that she can not state the "fact of creation" in the same way that Richard did the "fact of evolution."
Hey Brad,
Dawkins can back his position with empirical evidence (with demonstrable predictive capacity) spread across multiple scientific fields. Faith can't.
In any case, being the cautious spirit that I am, I shy away from using the word "fact" about anything - most especially with regard to my own beliefs!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Brad McFall, posted 10-06-2006 5:36 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by GDR, posted 10-06-2006 7:47 PM RickJB has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 257 of 285 (354950)
10-07-2006 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by iano
10-06-2006 8:45 PM


Iano writes:
The evidence is available to everybody without favoring this or that philosophy or belief.
Exactly. However you seem to forget that evolution has arisen BECAUSE of this, not in spite of it.
All the evidence across many fields as studied by thousands of different scientists of varying faiths points to evolution. These guys didn't gather in a room as part of an anti-YEC conspiracy and pick the theory out of a hat.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 8:45 PM iano has not replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 258 of 285 (354951)
10-07-2006 4:10 AM
Reply to: Message 246 by GDR
10-06-2006 8:42 PM


Re: Is there a double standard?
GDR writes:
My point is that Atheists on this forum don't get challenged when they try to make their arguments for first cause scientific, in the same way that Creationists or even Theists do.
Which arguments would those be?
Also, please don't forget that this board is frequented by scientists who identify themselves as christians, so be careful not to make a black and white distinction.
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by GDR, posted 10-06-2006 8:42 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by GDR, posted 10-07-2006 11:20 AM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 270 of 285 (354994)
10-07-2006 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by GDR
10-07-2006 11:20 AM


Re: Is there a double standard?
GDR writes:
Discussions of things like Dawkins' theory of "memes" are treated as being scientific, whereas "the god of the gaps' theory isn't.
Agree or disagree with Dawkins 'memes', they constitute a testable hypothesis. 'God in the gaps' on the other hand refers to an argument from ignorance that cannot be falsified. Therein lies the difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by GDR, posted 10-07-2006 11:20 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 10-07-2006 5:01 PM RickJB has replied

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 4990 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 274 of 285 (355116)
10-08-2006 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by GDR
10-07-2006 5:01 PM


Re: Is there a double standard?
GDR writes:
I'll just say that there has been no one who has seen a meme....
A 'meme' is a conceptual term that is applied to things we do experience - music, words etc. But as I said, it is a tentative positive hypothesis. No one - not even Dawkins himself, I'm sure - would argue that the meme concept is cast iron at this point. The arguments and debates over the true value/role of memetics continue as we speak.
However, when it comes "goddidit" it's all too clear that the existence of God is NOT up for discussion, despite the fact that has never been any empirical evidence of him. Furthermore, due to this lack of any empirical evidence, "goddidit" makes no positive claims, instead relying on "gaps" in scientific knowledge.
Seriously, can you not see the difference?
You make the classic mistake of equating religion and science. A given hypothesis (like the meme) is not seen as "fact" just because someone argues it. It may or may not become accepted only after being challenged and dissected. It will also always be subject to possibility of rejection at a later date.
Is the "God hypothesis" similarly up for discussion amongst YECs?
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 10-07-2006 5:01 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by AdminNosy, posted 10-08-2006 8:43 AM RickJB has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024