|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith Science - Logically Indefensible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Its not impossible to overcome but certainly its a problem when preconceptions enter into the mind of the experimentor. But then again, we could look at this from another angle. Any scientific inquiry that is made is first derived from some preconcieved notion that prompts an investigation of evidence. We call this a hypothesis. So, if you think about it, all hypothesis' begin with preconceptions. You are using the word "preconception" equivocally. It is true that I must think of an idea before I can test it; in that sense it is "preconceived". But there is no need for me to believe that idea; which is the sort of "preconception" which might cloud the mind of an experimenter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
By some strange coincidence your accusations of fraud ALSO happened to have no corroboration. Apparently scientists are to be held guilty until proven innocent. Since this is OT, this will be the last post I have on this topic. Its already been overwhelmingly proven that those are frauds or the deliberate withholding of evidence. Therefore, if you want to spin some sort of creationist conspiracy theory, then the burden of proof lies with you, not with me or anyone else. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
You are using the word "preconception" equivocally. It is true that I must think of an idea before I can test it; in that sense it is "preconceived". But there is no need for me to believe that idea; which is the sort of "preconception" which might cloud the mind of an experimenter. What I meant was that whenever somebody sees a phenomenon they can't totally explain, the starting point for any scientific inquiry comes from some idea or preexisting notion in the mind of the experimentor. This is obvious. Where it becomes a problem is when the experimentor deliberately falsifies information that runs counter to his personal belief(s). That's where I make the distinction. "There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Of course the fact is that you offered no corroboration. Simply asserting that there is proof elsewhere is just another double standard. Even if it were true. The question was one of motive as well as fraud. Some are frauds as I agreed - but your claim of motive has not been supported. In the case of the others your assertion is an outright falsehood. I will also add that I have not made the assertion that there is any creationist conspiracy. Why should there be ? Creationists freely copy from each other. There need be no organised conspiracy. All it takes is for one creationist to publicise a false accusation and others will repeat it without bothering to check it. If you dare, you can start a thread to back up your assertions. A Great Debate if you like. I have no fear because I know that the truth is on my side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I have challenged you before to support these ridiculous allegations in the appropriate thread. The ball is in your court - put up or shut up on this particular subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5848 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Its already been overwhelmingly proven that those are frauds or the deliberate withholding of evidence.
Assuming for a second that you are right and those were all frauds meant to advance evolutionary theory... Can't we agree regarding the OP, that those that did so were acting out of faith and not proper science? holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode} "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Can't we agree regarding the OP, that those that did so were acting out of faith and not proper science? Exactly!And another major difference worth pointing out is that all those frauds were eventually exposed by.......scientists doing real science!!! So boo sucks to the whole scientific conspiracy against God theory. I would also like to say that there are numerous examples in the history of science of scientists being certain of something but the evidence being against them - Hoyle's steady state universe, the existence of the aether etc. etc.Is it even imaginable that the faith based position of YE creationists could be even dented by new evidence? Edited by AdminJar, : fix quotebox
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Deciding you will just stop a discussion when you are backed into a corner is NOT an example of the kind of debate we want to encourage.
I suggest you try harder. Edited by AdminNosy, : correcting the author
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3626 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
The Bible is not science. It is art.
What does the word Bible mean? It means 'book.' What's a book? Literature. What's literature? Art. What does the word Scripture mean? It means 'writing.' What's writing? Literature. What's literature? Art. It is a mistake to treat art as science. The result will be bad science and bad art. _ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13042 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Guys, the discussion of evolutionary fraud really *is* off-topic for this thread, AdminNosy's request to keep-a-goin' notwithstanding. It's a valid topic that has been discussed here many times, so please just pick up discussion in one of the pre-existing threads or propose a new topic over at PNT.
I can see a way where evolutionary fraud can be drawn into this thread's topic. Creationists could describe how evolutionary preconceptions drove the efforts at fraud.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxjoe  Inactive Member |
subbie said:
Most scientists are in fact people of faith. Please name 2? Let me name a few that aren't of faith:Einstein, Hawking, Dawkins, Gould, Darwin, Huxley, Eldredge, Mayr, Simpson, Johanson, Leakey, Sagan, and Asimov
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxjoe  Inactive Member |
I said this on a Christian forum in Appologetics and am now BOOTED.
Scientists follow the evidence, and throw out incorrect data. When theories are found to be falsifiable, they throw out the theory. Its now almost been 150 years since "Origin of Species" and it is still going strong. There are countless errors and inconsitancies in the Bible, and it has yet to be thrown out. Who here is more arrogant? The scientist that accepts the possiblity that one of his theories may be wrong, or the Christian? Something to contemplate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxjoe  Inactive Member |
I don't think there is one Christian scientist that has not been given a lot of money by the Templeton foundation that is a Christian Fundamentalist.
Another thought...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Why do you conflate "faith" with "Christian" and with "fundamentalism"?
Edited by Ringo, : Spellinge. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
foxjoe  Inactive Member |
That is easy: you see I believe (with some evidence) that Christians that are not fundamentalists, doesn't fit my definition of Christianity. Think about it. Most Christians that go to say presperterian, or old methodist churches, are not concerned with atheists. In fact they are more agnostic, than most atheists. (the two aren't mutually exclusive).
I am not a "Sam Harris" whom has problems with Moderate Christians. They are not interested in thinking about Christianity deeply, just interested in establishing church relationships, singing, dinners, events and social friendships.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024