This is my last post. May the admin ban me life. I have found my short time here frustrating and largely a waste of time.
How can any two or more people have a fruitful discussion (especially in a science forum) if they cannot even agree on simple english words or even try to agree?! Here is an example...
faith writes:
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.
faith writes:
The Biblical accounts ARE objective statements of fact.
faith writes:
It's about faith and I'm arguing in rebuttal basically that faith in the
Bible's statement of facts is as good as having facts, which is perfectly scientific.
faith writes:
There are plenty of options for you to refute whatever theories creationists come up with about HOW it happened. But nobody in their right mind would say a known fact should be open to refutation.
Is it just me or is the term "fact" being misused above. In a forum recently faith makes this arrogant comment:
faith writes:
You, like so many others here, are simply wrong about what a fact is, what an interpretation is, what logic is, what a fallacy is, what faith is, what science is.
But when pressed politely to define those term she condescendly refuses.
Message 25
Wiki defines 'fact' as:
is an objective and verifiable observation.
Further more, I sure her definition of "fact" stems from the implied assumption (My God is True. My God wrote the Bible, My God said it in the bible - it is fact and it is as good as any scientific fact). Great for theology, devastating for a science discussion.
Found this little jewel in the wiki on "premise"
Wiki on Premise writes:
In discourse, a premise is a statement presumed true within the context of the discourse for the purposes of arguing to a conclusion. Premises are sometimes stated explicitly by way of disambiguation or for emphasis, but more often they are left tacitly understood as being obvious or self-evident ("it goes without saying"), or not conducive to succinct discourse.
The accuracy or truth of the conclusion depends on both the truth of the premises and the soundness of the reasoning from the premises to the conclusion.
Faith contends her faith-baed premise is valid with any statement of proof. I ask repeatedly if she can acknowledge other faith-based premises - she replies... oh thats off topic - not wanting to place christian creation science on the same shelf with hindu creation science where it belongs. She prefer to elevate christian science on the same level as traditional science which, in my humble opinion does not.
™ Version 4.2
