Faith's Participation in EvC

I think we're nearing the point where this thread will shift from focus on the OP to the regular tit for tat. AdminOmni is already itching to close it, but I think I can hold him back a little longer. Yes, if God were to state something, say, inscribed in flaming letters 100 stories tall in the sky, or burned ruby lambent on the moon, or shouted so the whole world rang like a bell, I'd probably grant that was a fact.But a printed page that some too-bright-eyed eager believer thrusts under my eyes and insistents is the Word of God--that's another story, and a story that has a thousand variants around the world, with no objective correlative to make any single variant preferable.Gin up your opinions, folks, because AdminOmni stirs within his Deep Keep, and this thread is about done.

In a scientific discussion the facts and reasoning stand. They stand independently of who is laying them out.Obviously someone who knows a particular field very well is much more likely to get his facts straight than an enthusiastic amateur. We've seen reasonably knowledgeable "evos" post mistakes often enough. We've also seen other "evos" correct them. This correction process helps correct for the amateur level of knowledge of most of us. Fortuntately we have some real experts in some of the fields to help catch more errors than we otherwise might.When the experts aren't here that is what the other side is for. If anyone, on either side, posts something factually wrong or uses faulty reasoning those disagreeing with the conclusions can correct the facts and reasoning. A natural check and balance just like that used in all science.It doesn't require any scientists at all to carry on a discussion (though I, for one, am very glad to have the scientists here that we have). All we have to do is to be able to marshall facts and show how they support our views.Of course, most of us laypersons just look stuff up (on the web preferable but maybe books). We use what those knowledgable in the fields have found and explain.All the "creos" have to do is refer to the facts and reasoning presented in books or websites by the creation "scientists".It is highly unfortunate that when they try to find rebutals to things like the dating correlations thread all they find is ....nada!The creation scientists know enough to know what they shouldn't touch because they have no explanation for what is found.If any "creos" want to invite creation "scientists" here we'd LOVE to have them drop in. The rest of us are happy to invite ALL scientists here through their work. We simple pick up their work and bring it here. It doesn't matter who types the posts. It is the content of those posts that counts.IT IS ONLY THE CONTENT THAT COUNTS.There are lots of websites on both sides of the argument. One would expect that the very best arguments on both sides are available on those sites. All we need to do is expend the effort to understand the arguments and be prepared to express them in our own words.So we don't need creation scientists we just need creationists who are willing to digest the work of the creation scientists and understand it and present it. Then when others critique that work those who want to support it have to show what is wrong with the critiques.Sounds like a plan to me. Anything wrong with that?

By dismissing FSMims as an effective foundation from which to base science you are really dismissing faith based science.You have no means at your disposal to truely invalidate my opinion... err... facts, other than pointing out that "no one believes in it". But what if instead I said Hinduism? Hinduism is not as easy to dismiss which has over a billion believers. Or what if I had said Hopi Creation Science? There are Hopi believers.Then Hindu or Hopi Creation Science would be on equal footing with Biblical Creation Science as a fair basis for scientific discussion as per your quote: Let me borrow some of your own words in bold...You do not have to agree with them, just merely to understand the logic that if ... their scripture or oral tradition ... is given by God then those premises are facts and valid as a basis for scientific discussion. They are on equal footing for consideration as yours, as are Norse, Roman, Pagan, Greek religious systems.The only way you could argue out of this is by presenting some "facts" to support your faith. This is where the hard work is. You have taken the lazy short cut and made the leap that the bible is "fact".You are using the english term "fact" rather loosely, which I think impairs communication.Here is websters definition concerning scientific fact:Fact: is an objective and verifiable observation.

Yes this thread is cooked as I suspect we are about to sink into a fruitless debate and split hairs on the meaning of the term "fact"However, Omnivorous it was not for nothing, as you did make me laugh.

Very well put. Which is the purpose of the science forums. This statement goes with the credoUnderstanding through knowledge and discussionNot hiding behind the indefensible "If God said it - it is fact". In which case all that is left is debating the meaning of some culturally unconnected obscure Hebrew word translation.

You will not find a YEC, for sure --- maybe an IDer too, I don't know a lot about ID -- who will treat the Biblical record of the Flood as anything other than a fact. Of course, it doesn't need to be mentioned, let alone discussed: it is quite possible to argue the geological facts only, and avoid ever bringing up the Bible, but it IS the creationist's unalterable premise no matter how much science he or she knows. I merely get put in a position to have to state it now and then.

There is a pattern here, but not the one percy discussed in the OP. What happens is whenever a critic of evo brings up arguments that evos cannot effectively refute, there is a move to ban the critic, claiming the debate is unproductive. But there is not an honest accounting of why the debate is unproductive. It's not unproductive because the logic, tone or argument of the critic is wrong. It's "unproductive" to the evos because the critics' argument cannot be refuted, and evos become frustrated with that.The forum would progress significantly if the evos here could realize that. Instead, there is the need on the evo side to never admit to any weaknesses, facts, arguments or anything that threatens their belief system, and so it's not surprising to see threads started to try to ban Faith since her arguments could not be refuted otherwise.

quote:

---

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.

---

But Faith is proposing that it should not have to. The Flood HAS been thoroughly refuted by scientific standards. No viable Flood-based explanation of geology has been produced. But nevertheless Faith wants to go on treatign the idea that the Flood is responsible for geology as a fact. Faith isn't agreeing that "creo sceince" has to stand up - because the "science" she's proposing fell flat on it's face back in the 19th Century and has never stood up since.

quote:

---

Newtons motivation might well have been to discover how Godidit but he didn't engage in alchemy.

---

Oh yes he did. And (unorthodox) theology. And none of that work is counted amongst his scientific output.

quote:

---

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.

---

So now you are saying that "creo science" DOESN'T have to "stand up". It gets a special pass, allowing it to redefine science to include anything it likes. Why can't the astrologers and alchemists and Flat Earthers do the same ?

quote:

---

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.

---

The problem is that you are demanding that "creo science" should be accepted as science by fiat. You aren't giving any reasons why it should be. In fact you start off by saying that it has to "stand up" - whcih means that it should be rejected because it doesn't.

quote:

---

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.

---

I haven't made any such demand.But the calls for Faith to be restricted aren't based on her making reasonable demands. It is based on the fact that she often refuses to engage in honest debate and not infrequently resorts to abuse. They shouldn't be ashamed of themselves - you should for your dishonest misrepresentation of the situation.

ah randman, it always refreshes me to learn just how truly backwards you see everything. you have a knack for phrasing the argument exactly, but mixing up "us" and "them."one of the issues being discussed, in particular, is faith's dodging of certain points, only to bring them up again and pretend like there were never any questions raised. so, in other words, what you said, only wrt to faith, not everyone else. i think you have again mixed up the definitions of "science" and "religion." i have seen faith admit error here exactly once, and it suprised the hell out of me. she is one of the few creationists i have ever seen admit error. quite simply put, creationism assumes it has the TRUTH^tm on its side, and is motivated primarily religious belief that dare not be doubted. i continually get blasted by creationists for my willingness to doubt my faith. science, you see, is questioning. by definition. it proposes to test things. faith says, "don't test the lord your god," and scorns questioning. and it's not suprising that you have failed to read very much of this thread, where the vast majority of opinions voiced are "let faith stay" combined with the occasional "i can't believe we're even discussing this." i was the first in this public thread to voice my opinion that faith should stay, and that she has done nothing wrong. i have made my point before, for faith, for you, and for others. and i will continue to make it in the future.

---

What do you think the EvC debate could possibly be about then, if the conclusion is already in place before anybody bothers to argue it?When you say things like this it's very clear that nobody has debate in mind at all, merely demonstrating how right they are enough so that the "ignorant" finally have to submit. When they see the light and embrace evolution they will be lauded; otherwise they will continue to be classed with the dummies and finally suspended.And speaking of abuse, calling someone dishonest who disagrees with you is a form of abuse that you indulge in a great deal.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Truthfully, the level of dodging points engaged by evos here is such that levelling that accusation at Faith or anyone else is highly hypocritical. At least Faith has not the power to, and does not resort to, using the power of banning to completely dodge points, as is common in the evo community here, imo.What you guys fail to see is that generally evos are actually the ones guilty of the things they accuse their critics of. It reminds me of the political debate over sexual misconduct. A lib dem engages in sexual misconduct, and all we hear for the most part is how it's just sex, a private matter, etc, etc,....and then hey, poor Clarence Thomas has just one woman accuse him of harassment, and the lynch-mob is ready. It's just blatant hypocrisy.And that's really what passes for argument from the evo side most of the time. They ignore arguments, and then try to get others to prove a negative. They filter facts by their ideology, and basically everything they accuse creationists, IDers and others of, generally you see these practices widespread within the evo camp. That's not all evos, but it's very widespread, and one reason for so many forgeries, fakes, and overstatements taken as facts among the evo community over the years.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

So you want this site censored to ban facts that creationists don't like.

quote:

---

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.

---

If this is true it only supports my point. Flood geology has failed - apparently it has failed in spite of the abilities of the scientists involved. It follows that Flood geology is a blind alley of research - because it is based on false assumptions.

quote:

---

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

---

Pardon me, but you aren't the best judge of these things. You have demonstrated that you will uncritically go along with any idea that you happen to like - without any real critical examination. For instance your endorsement of claims about hurricanes - taken from a website about penny stocks, which you endorsed because it was the only site which said what you wanted ! (Anybody with a critical eye would have taken that as a warning sign that the site was wrong).

quote:

---

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.

---

What you meant is that you get driven up the wall by people who actually read the Bible rather than assuming that it says what you want. I suppose it must be embarassing for you to be wrong so often after all your "decades" of study - but by talking about it you only embarrass yourself further.

OK, that's a fair view of the situation. We don't need scientists, just people who have well digested the science involved in the issues under debate. Well, we all try to do that, but the degree of knowledge required is beyond most of us. You do need people with more of a science background than you tend to get on the creo side.

If some YEC'er brings some "facts" to bear that disprove lets say ice core dating or explains recorded sea bed lava magnetic reversals - I don't think expulsion would be on anyone's mind.Some lively debate perhaps and the truth will out hopefully.It is the stubborn insistence that one can define any premise they choose and then extrapolate logic beyond that premise and still have a valid basis of discussion concerning science. I think I belabored that point a few posts below. I would love to believe in YEC actually. However, evaluation of the facts and intellectual honesty prevents me from doing so, not some ego hook behaviour that you are trying to project.Yes faith's arguement of "Zeus said it - it is a fact" cannot be refuted. This is the last refuge of someone out of ammo.Concerning your last sentence above. I challenge you to state one arguement, or start a new topic, that Faith has advanced that "could not be refuted otherwise".

Let me add that i recognize many evos do not want to see their critics banned, but at the same time, there are those that do, and they have a lot of influence and power for that sort of thing at EvC, and evos do get frustrated, imo, when they cannot effectively refute an argument. There does seem to be this need to discount any fact that they FEEL threatens their beliefs. That's one reason that a critic of evolution can present a fact, and evos deny it. heck, critics can present facts for over 100 years and evos still refuse to accept the truth, until an evo admits to the same fact.Why is that?Why the hostility towards admitting certain facts in the fossil record until PE came out?Why the hostility towards admitting the basic facts, the data, on Haeckel's frauds and embryonic data until Richardson in 1997?It's a pattern. If there is a feeling that a fact could threaten some aspect of evolutionary theory, the fact is vehemently denied. But if an evo comes out and presents the same data, but in a way that can fit evo theory, then the data is accepted.Has the data changed usually?Nope. That's one reason evo theory is methodologically flawed. It's essentially non-objective in the reasoning process.