Faith's Participation in EvC

Did I say that was one of the points I disputed ? I suggest that if I provide an example that you actually use it rather than jumping to completely erroneous conclusions.

Can a creationist who believes the flood happened and who ignores any idea that it did not happen do science (according to their philosophy of science and not yours)

Lets leave it. This thread is about something else. I won't even try to get the last word in. Can't say fairer than that

quote:

---

Can a creationist who believes the flood happened and who ignores any idea that it did not happen do science (according to their philosophy of science and not yours)

---

Only in areas where the presumed Flood does not affect their work.If we allowed unchallengable dogmas to be accepted within science then science itself would become meaningless. Any and every pseudoscience would have to be accepted as valid. All you have to do is start by assuming that it is valid - from astrology to perpetual motion scams to the Flat Earthers. And I can't say that astrology isn't marginally better than the Flood - if there's a sound refutation of the "Mars effect" I haven't seen it.

quote:

---

Lets leave it. This thread is about something else. I won't even try to get the last word in. Can't say fairer than that

---

You could be fairer than that - you could admit that you were completely wrong.

Look I haven't asked anyone to believe that my Flying Spaghetti Monsterism premises are science, merely to understand the logic that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster Bible is given by the Flying Spaghetti Monster then those premises are facts and valid as a basis for scientific discussion. You don't have to believe any of this, merely understand that it is valid logic and Flying Spaghetti Monster creationists believe it.Can you and I agree philosphically on this?If so, you don't mind if I start gumming up the science forums with posts claiming that we should not be questioning on "IF" the solid earth was formed from a chaotic mass of bubbling pasta but creative theories on "HOW". FSM is fact - The rest are details.My faith in FSM is as strong as your faith in the bible. If you believe your faith is more credible, please explain. Don't use any facts or evidence please - I don't want to your facts, as I have my own FSM based facts which are just as valid. How about a faith based creation debate right in middle of science forums?However I will admit to one weakness when I go to the doctor I request for traditional science based treatment and not FSM science derived treatments. How about you?Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

I understand your concern but this is not what I think Faith proposes. "Creo" science must stand up as any science ever has - since the day science was born. Newtons motivation might well have been to discover how Godidit but he didn't engage in alchemy. No, he applied a methodology that was logical and ordered and rational and...well... scientific. I remember doing those tickertape laws of motion experiements myself...A person presenting a theory involving a world wide flood is not beholden to your philosophy of science Paul - they are beholden only to science itself. Which begs the question: what is science - if it is not my own philosophy of science?. This is not the place to look at that in full.But me? I picture it as a wateringhole. A place where a lot of folk who have all sorts of reasons to devour each other decide they will not. They are all agreed that there is one common denominator on which they are all agreed. And that common denominator (bar the quacks) is water.What constitutes water might well be a subject to investigate. But to assume command and define what constitutes water (as is so often the evo stance here) is, I think, the root of the problem.She has said as much in so very many words. And now she is up for being banned because of it. Shame on you who would have it so.

quote:

---

on one hand, people jump on faith for not answering everything. on the other, people jump on her for posting too much. can faith win this game?

---

First off, I want to be clear that I do not belive Faith to be a troll.Second, the reason posting levels were ever brought up was because Brad McFall was mentioned in comparison to Faith as having not incurred the mod's attention even though he contributes very little with his posts. I simply suggested that the reason this was so, and why Faith did attract moderator attention (among other reasons) was because Faith has so very many more posts than Brad.I am positive that if Brad had posted almost 10,000 messages in less than two years, he would have been banned by now.

Tentatively, circumspectively..and with a retitence I can barely overcome.I.....agree.....with....banzai......you

quote:

---

what is science - if it is not my own philosophy of science?.

---

We have a forum for discussing this very question and I'd be very interested in participating in this sort of topic.But, to answer your question in short...What science is has been agreed upon and developed over the years.I like the short essay found here, a few excerpts are below: Pertaining more directly to your point about people haveing "personal" philosophies of science: Again, please start a thread in the Is It Science forum and I will join you there.

---

"Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends! Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!"
- Ned Flanders"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." - Thomas Jefferson

quote:

---

I.....agree.....with....banzai......you

---

See now, that didn't hurt too much, did it?You should agree with me more often. I promise it gets easier with practice.

What science isn't is what has been agreed upon and developed over the years. Science is far more objective than such a flimsy notion as "what some agreed upon and developed over the years". God forbid that Science be merely the fashion of the ideology of the times in which it was developed. It is far simpler than that - I must suppose. Your way suggests that "if the times had been different the science would have been different" *shivers* No need Schraf. The OP in question (and I've only gotten to Percy's exhibit #1) is pure philosophy.

I hold to a God ordained view of man/woman relationship...ta very much {AbE} Steady Schraf...its about an equality so equal it would send shivers down your spineEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

since iano agrees, i'm not sure i can.

quote:

---

I hold to a God ordained view of man/woman relationship...ta very much

---

Me too. The Goddess is very clear in what she directs.

quote:

---

Steady Schraf...its about an equality so equal it would send shivers down your spine

---

I already experience an exceedingly spine-shivering equality in my "man/woman relationship", thanks very much.I wish everyone to enjoy such equality with their spouse/S.O..Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.