|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,481 Year: 3,738/9,624 Month: 609/974 Week: 222/276 Day: 62/34 Hour: 1/4 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Faith's Participation in EvC | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member  Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
This forum is called "Evolution vs CREATIONISM". Why would you want to ban one of the very few on this board that will actually stand up and argue the creationist position.
The EvC name for this forum presumably acknowledges both the Bible (creationism) and science (evolution). Faith just sees the Bible as trumping science. There are those on the other side of the fence who totally reject the Bible and mock the Christian faith whenever possible. Why aren't they suspended? All Christians regard the Bible as having some degree of revelation. We are all trying to sort out how to understand the Bible. Even Faith doesn't take it all literally but she takes it more literally than most of us. I think that Faith shows amazing amount of faith, courage and persistence in the way that she defends her position. Greg PS. I disagree with the suspension of randman for similar reasons, but I very much appreciate the fact that the board is moderated as well as it is. Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Brian writes: The way Faith defends her position in the science threads is not actually 'science', and is therefore incompatible with a science discussion. I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm not a scientist but I think what's happening is that Faith sometimes uses bad science in order to support her view of how the Bible should be read. If one accepts the Bible as being literally true then you have to believe that science is wrong and that if science were to work hard enough it would eventually be congruent with the Bible. She does the best she can with the knowledge that she has. There is a logic to what it is she is doing.
Brian writes: I think that it is because, even though it would be seen as mocking, their arguments are supported in a scientific manner. For example, to say that the Flood is a myth and then give scientific evidence to support that may insult Christians, but the construction of the post is in line with the scientific approach. Using science to refute the claims of Christians is not mockery, nor is it insulting. Things like comparing a belief in Christ to believing in the tooth fairy is. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: Percy thinks if he gets rid of me whatever it is he wants to happen will happen more. I'm going to keep a very low profile for a while and see if that's so. I hope that "a while" doesn't last very long. This is a much better forum with you than without you. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
RickJB writes: Dawkins can back his position with empirical evidence (with demonstrable predictive capacity) spread across multiple scientific fields. Faith can't. That's the whole point that Brad was making. Dawkins and other Atheists go beyond science without their positions being questioned. I don't care how accomplished a scientist is. His or her view of first cause is no more valid than Faith's because it has nothing to do with science. Evolution is scientific, therefore it is agnostic. What is the first cause for evolution? Dawkins and others like him, (of which there are many on this forum) contend all first causes are natural and without metaphysical cause. Although I disagree with Faith on how to read the Bible we and many others are convinced that there is metaphysical design involved, but neither of these positions are scientific. You and others seem to be able to sell your position as scientific in a way that Faith can't. In my view there is something of a double standard. As I read Brad's post that is the point he is trying to make and I agree with him. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
nwr writes: As far as I can tell, Dawkins is not attempting to have his atheism added to the school science curriculum. How many universities have "The Selfish Gene" in their curriculum? At any rate that is off topic as well as being a straw man. 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. Edited by GDR, : typo Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy
Just a thought here. I would suggest that there has been enough discussion that is specifically about Faith. Iano has just started a thread "Let's Make Things Better". I think that he is on the right track by trying to deal with any problems that exist in a more general way rather than focusing on one poster. I suggest that maybe it is time to close this thread in favour of the general approach suggested by Iano. Edited by GDR, : Sorry. I should have replied to Quetzel with this. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
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.RickJB writes: 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. Discussions of things like Dawkins' theory of "memes" are treated as being scientific, whereas "the god of the gaps' theory isn't. "Memes" is to Atheism what "the god of the gaps" is to Theism. Neither is scientific no matter how you dress it up. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
RickJB writes: 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. I think that we are getting off topic here so I'll just say that there has been no one who has seen a meme, and no one has found it mathematically. It is an attempt to fill in the gaps of knowledge of the transmission of cultural or personality traits. Goddidit is the Theistic way and memes is Dawkins' Atheistic way. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
