Faith's Participation in EvC

Yeah..me neither. Ban the bitch!

This...:

quote:

---

God forbid that Science be merely the fashion of the ideology of the times in which it was developed.

---

...doesn't at all follow from this:

quote:

---

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".

---

quote:

---

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*

---

Of course I didn't mean to imply that at all."What science is has been agreed upon and developed over the years" is certainly accurate, but it was admittedly a shorthand way of saying that what we think of as "the scientific method" wasn't made in a day, or even a century.It took quite a few years to develop and refine the most accurate way (to date) to investigate natural phenomena.Read the essay I linked to. It should answer all of your questions regarding if we should give Faith's personal "philosophy of science" equal weight to that of thousands of professional scientists.

You seem to have given a tight synopsis: "Science is whatever the scientists say it is"Oh dear..!

Its more than just unorthodox and its more than just tacky, its completely disrespectful of Faith-- somebody who never resorts to childish antics or ad hom. Like her or not for her "personal opinions," Faith is an integral part of EvC and she helps balance out the overwhelming majority of atheists and evolutionists. I mean, Percy is talking about banning a long-time member who he is tacitly referring to as stupid.Without creationists and evolutionists, theists and atheists battling each others wits, what purpose does this forum serve? What kind of participation would their be?Faith should stay. She's a nice woman, very eloquent in her writing style, tenacious, and vivacious. She gives this forum the balance it needs to stay alive. It would prove to be a big mistake to ban her for an unbanable offense.

---

"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

quote:

---

You seem to have given a tight synopsis: "Science is whatever the scientists say it is"

​

Oh dear..!

---

Would you be similarly concerned if I said that "Plumbing is whatever plumbers say it is."?

quote:

---

its completely disrespectful of Faith-- somebody who never resorts to childish antics or ad hom.

---

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!*wipes tears from eyes*That was a good one, juggs, thank you. Made my evening.

Please don't suspend or maginalize Faith, for the reasons so well stated at the beginning of this thread.If Faith is derailing rational discussions, which happens a lot, call her on it (which also happens a lot).Personally, I feel Faith often points out things I overlook, which helps me to fashion a more comprehensive argument.Also, when I was in intel in the Army, I studied the strategy and tactics of the enemy. How can we have a better representative of such strategy and tactics than Faith?(Not that I view Faith as an enemy, just a misinformed soul who needs to examine her beliefs more thoroughly in order to achieve deeper understanding )

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider.
Sir Francis Bacon

I think Percy's aim for this site is to have a high-level scientific discussion. I'm guessing, but I don't know what else it is he has in mind. He can't simply enjoy seeing evos push scientifically unsophisticated creos around.Theoretically such a high-level debate shouldn't be impossible, but for that to happen high-level creationist scientists would have to be recruited, and really, those who aren't qualified should not be allowed to post at all in the science forums-- evos as well. It would mean that most of the evos here are not qualified to post either. There should be some well-defined standards of knowledge applied.These creationist scientists should be YECs, or IDers like Buzsaw or Randman. This would mean finding YECs and IDers who ARE scientists, who have the training and the experience, and talk the language on a par with the evo scientists. What is happening now is that few of the creationists who come here have a scientific background, at least on the necessary level.How many of these are there out there?How would they be enticed to post at EvC?Seems to me the whole profile of EvC would have to change to make that possible. There's a lot of low-level stuff here, and it's not all on the creationist side by a long shot.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. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The same one you did--as we're on the same side in this discussion.The Rock of Ages, surely.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

PaulK, when you and others make statements like this, I see you and the others equally as problematic to productive debate as Admin sees Faith. There are good creationist scientists, many of whom are highly educated PHDs, et al and who do science equally as efficiently thoroughly and capably as evolutionist scientists.For example Chris Miller, scientist and geologist, is a geologist for an oil company who for most of his life was an avid evolutionist. He is now an avid creationist and one of the best at refuting evolutionism with his unique approach as a geologist that I've read or heard so far. He recently gave three (abe: excellent seminar lectures open to the public) which I attended applying creationist interpretations to what is observed scientifically, clearly articulating technical problems with the evolutionist model regarding many claims of mainline science. I believe he has a web sight which you may google up. I've got it somewhere. I'd love to have him debate here, but likely he's too busy for that.Chris Miller is one of scores of creation scientists and is one of a number who've come out of evolution to become creationists from what they have observed in science while doing science.Regarding theology debates here, there are some prominent members who continually drive us who've been into the Bible extensively for decades daily up the proverbial wall, showing little evidence of sufficient knowledge of the Bible to debate effectively in some of the threads. I see this equally as frustrating as Admin see's Faith yet these folks rarely get honed in on as problematic members. They of course, represent the majority thinking on this site, thus enjoy immunity from the critique scrutiny the tiny minority IDist creationist memembership is sometimes subjected to. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

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.

You make some good points here Faith and I pretty much concur with what you've said. I was posting before I read yours and I see we are thinking along the same lines put different ways. Most scientists are just too busy to do forums and when we of the peanut gallery try to make their arguments we don't state things elitely scientific enough to suit the scientists counterparts who are here.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Certainly not. You know who God would have to be if you believed in Him; you know who He is to us. You know your FSM is believed in by no one. The comparison is ludicrous and makes a mockery of the conversation.My statement stands. If GOD states something, it is FACT. It is not human thoughts in a mere book, it is not the opinion of a made-up god, it is fact.{EDIT: It's a matter of logic: IF the premise is true, IF God -- God as defined in the Bible, the God who knows all things, who doesn't lie -- states something, THEN the conclusion is true, it is fact. In this case you can't prove or disprove the premise, and if you don't believe in it, that doesn't affect the fact that it is logically correct and WE believe it as the truth. You may keep us in the non-science forums, of course, that's fair on a site like this.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I also appreciate your observation about the caliber of theology debate here. THAT will never be recognized, however.And I really do think a test should be given to qualify people to debate science here. A vocabulary test for starters, a knowledge of all the definitions in the various fields, all the basics. That would eliminate most of the evos here too.I'd LOVE to see creationists on that level argue science. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It may be so that what Percy has in mind simply can't happen for any number of reasons, but I wish him well if he wants to try to bring it about.