Faith's Participation in EvC

quote:

---

The thread in question asserted that it was not possible to do science if one held Goddidit.

---

If you read it, it held that holding beliefs as unquestionable dogma was anti-scientific. I agree.

quote:

---

Faith frequently has to field arguments which dismiss the possibility of doing science simply because one believes, a priori, that Godidit.

---

No she does not. This is the same handwaving again. The issue over the Flood is NOT how it happened but IF it happened. Science says that it quite definitely did not. So how can you be doing science if you work on the basis that it did happen, no matter what the evidence ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

That is a lie....I will go thru the trouble again to identify the relevent post by Omni Message 121.

Of course you do. You hold to an Enlightment philosophy of science. Science is completely open-ended. Nothing is assumed to be before it is shown to empirically be. Bottom up science as opposed to the top down science of a believer. Both are based on a philosopy - and about as polar opposite as they can be - as is reflected here at EvC.The founding fathers of science were totally convinced that God existed. They didn't have it in their day but any science that claimed to support the notion of a perpetual universe would have been rejected because of an a priori belief in a Creator God.

quote:

---

Of course you do. You hold to an Enlightment philosophy of science. Science is completely open-ended. Nothing is assumed to be before it is shown to empirically be. Bottom up science as opposed to the top down science of a believer. Both are based on a philosopy - and about as polar opposite as they can be - as is reflected here at EvC.

---

So fine, you count astrology, alchemy, Flat Earth beleifs and all the rest as science becasue your "philosphy" allows ANY dogmatically held belief to be counted as science. I'll stick with a definition that reflects how thee word is actually used, instead of one invented to prop up your position.

quote:

---

The founding fathers of science were totally convinced that God existed. They didn't have it in their day but any science that claimed to support the notion of a perpetual universe would have been rejected because of an a priori belief in a Creator God.

---

Whether it would have been rejected doesn't matter, The question is whether such a rejection would have been counted as science. We don't count Newton's alchemy or theology as science.Your argument again and again refuses to deal with the real issue. All you've doen is equivocate between a beleif in God and allowing that belief to control scientific conclusions to the point of rejecting the scientific method whenever it produces the "wrong" results.

You were correct when you noted this is off-topic, but it is possible to cast this into the context of this discussion. The thread where this came up was in the science forums. You have to be willing to discuss the observational and/or experimental foundation of your facts to see if they qualify as scientific facts. You can't just declare that your facts are facts that can't be disputed or discussed, not if you're doing science, and not in a forum whose reason for being is discussion. Your persistent refusal to discuss this combined with persistent repetition of it is a good example of what causes me to attempt to limit your participation here. Too many discussions where you participate eventually boil down to dancing around the same mulberry bush, and I would like this pattern to end.It is within your power to leave this merry-go-round behind. All you have to do is address the substance contained in replies to you, such as Message 70 in Faith Science - Logically Indefensible that spent quite a bit of time explaining why scientific facts do not originate in books. Responding to well argued rebuttals with declarations of belief is what is getting you into trouble in the science forums.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Maybe you should do more GD topics or even choose to do a Showcase topic where it would only be a few on few. Select some eager opponents or let them volunteer and avoid the pile on. If all that is prohibiting you from taking the time to understand the arguments against you is the volume, then decrease the volume.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

The founding fathers developed the scientific method in order to leave behind the disorder involved with the likes of alchemy. Thus was born chemistry for instance.Creationists are not entitled to "the flood happened and me saying so means it is scientific" Creationists are entitled to believe the flood happened and then go about making an empirical case for it just like any scientist must. They are allowed to compete with alernative views based on the evidence.The OP in question said they were not allowed to do this. Creation science cannot be - because of the starting principle.I suspect I'll get a response that will talk all about how creationists have not managed to assemble the science in a scientific way. Feel free to do so - but this is not about that. This is about whether a belief Goddidit preclude doing science.Faith rejected Stragglers assertion. As do I.

Is Faith permitted to state her belief that the flood happened in fact and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way?

But that has absolutely NOTHING to with the thread or topic.If Faith actually did what you assert there would be no problem. The issue is that in an honest search for how Goddidit in the case of the Flood, the answer turns out to be "God didn't do it because it never happened."That is where Faith fails.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I am picking up a post earlier which Percy says is an example of Faith doing as Faith shouldn't and am arguing that this is not evidence of wrong doing - given that she was entitled to reject the assertion out of hand.Percy put up the evidence. Can I not challenge it?

Is it valid to her and is what you believe valied to you? Are your beliefs valider........because why? If you don't like what she says, don't talk to her. Or is that too simple? If I don't like the crap I read, I give it a chuckle and move on.Of course, it's not much of a high!

If they believe that something like the Biblical Flood is FACT then they cannot do science.Period. That is it.Unless they are honest enough to say that they hold the Flood tentatively and are ready to discard it if the evidence so indicates, they are not capable of investigating the flood.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't know how you read that threat to go to admin mode but that's how I read it, and calling a person a liar is very bad form. I think you should leave now as you said you were going to. Bye bye.Oh and I did answer you, off topic and all.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Probably a little too emphatic, mistaken might have been a better choice of words. Take a short break.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Percy, that thread was addressed to the very central issue of the debate. I could have stayed off it and then everybody would just agree with the OP and that should have taken only half a dozen posts and that would be the end of it. But he is challenging the basis of my beliefs, the basis of the whole debate, and I answered him. That it is not in accord with what science says or EvC says science says I cannot help. It is the basis of Biblical creationist debate and if the premise I stated is true then the conclusion is true. I didn't DECLARE it, I SHOWED it. Yes, well then it will, won't it? That is a ridiculous and obvious point, Percy, to which the obvious answer is that the Bible is not regarded by Biblical creationists as just a book, which I believe is how I answered, and if you will not accept Biblical creationist premises -- not for yourself or for EvC but as a simple statement of our position -- there is nothing more that can be said. What you want at EvC is simply an impossibility. You can always talk to people who are willing to bend the Bible of course, but you can't have debate with Biblical creationists on your terms. In other words, (Edit: Certainly if that post is considered to be a "well argued rebuttal") what keeps getting me into trouble is the fact that I am a Biblical creationist.1) I don't regard that as a well-argued rebuttal to say the least, but merely your statement of position which no creationist is allowed to disagree with, or YOUR statement of belief; and 2) I answered it, I did not merely give a statement of belief. It was to make a point.Obviously the chasm between our respective world views is unbridgeable.But that's the case between EvC and all Biblical creationists, not just with me.Good luck.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.