Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 1:22 AM
212 online now:
Dredge, Meddle, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), vimesey (4 members, 208 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,463 Year: 3,500/19,786 Month: 495/1,087 Week: 85/212 Day: 1/14 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415161718
19
Author Topic:   Faith's Participation in EvC
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 271 of 285 (355017)
10-07-2006 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by RickJB
10-07-2006 3:16 PM


Re: Is there a double standard?
RickJB writes:

Agree or disagree with Dawkins 'memes', they constitute a testable hypothesis. 'God in the gaps' on the other hand refers to an argument from ignorance that cannot be falsified. Therein lies the difference.

I think that we are getting off topic here so I'll just say that there has been no one who has seen a meme, and no one has found it mathematically. It is an attempt to fill in the gaps of knowledge of the transmission of cultural or personality traits. Goddidit is the Theistic way and memes is Dawkins' Atheistic way.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by RickJB, posted 10-07-2006 3:16 PM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by RickJB, posted 10-08-2006 3:16 AM GDR has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 285 (355097)
10-07-2006 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by PaulK
10-06-2006 3:04 AM


Re: The wrong idea of fairness
PaulK writes:

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.

Contrary to your claim that there is no creation science, regardless of what you personally think of flood geology, bonafide practicing geologists who research flood geology arriving at alternative interpretations of what is observed are doing science.


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by PaulK, posted 10-06-2006 3:04 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by ReverendDG, posted 10-08-2006 12:08 AM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 275 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2006 7:25 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 2184 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 273 of 285 (355104)
10-08-2006 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Buzsaw
10-07-2006 10:57 PM


Re: The wrong idea of fairness
Contrary to your claim that there is no creation science, regardless of what you personally think of flood geology, bonafide practicing geologists who research flood geology arriving at alternative interpretations of what is observed are doing science.

i'd like to see this shown someday, all i've seen from the creationist side is faulty research and fudged evidence that turns out to be wrong
This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2006 10:57 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by AdminNosy, posted 10-08-2006 8:43 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded
 Message 284 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2006 7:39 PM ReverendDG has not yet responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 274 of 285 (355116)
10-08-2006 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by GDR
10-07-2006 5:01 PM


Re: Is there a double standard?
GDR writes:

I'll just say that there has been no one who has seen a meme....

A 'meme' is a conceptual term that is applied to things we do experience - music, words etc. But as I said, it is a tentative positive hypothesis. No one - not even Dawkins himself, I'm sure - would argue that the meme concept is cast iron at this point. The arguments and debates over the true value/role of memetics continue as we speak.

However, when it comes "goddidit" it's all too clear that the existence of God is NOT up for discussion, despite the fact that has never been any empirical evidence of him. Furthermore, due to this lack of any empirical evidence, "goddidit" makes no positive claims, instead relying on "gaps" in scientific knowledge.

Seriously, can you not see the difference?

You make the classic mistake of equating religion and science. A given hypothesis (like the meme) is not seen as "fact" just because someone argues it. It may or may not become accepted only after being challenged and dissected. It will also always be subject to possibility of rejection at a later date.

Is the "God hypothesis" similarly up for discussion amongst YECs?

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by GDR, posted 10-07-2006 5:01 PM GDR has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by AdminNosy, posted 10-08-2006 8:43 AM RickJB has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14747
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 275 of 285 (355138)
10-08-2006 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 272 by Buzsaw
10-07-2006 10:57 PM


Re: The wrong idea of fairness
quote:

Contrary to your claim that there is no creation science, regardless of what you personally think of flood geology, bonafide practicing geologists who research flood geology arriving at alternative interpretations of what is observed are doing science.

I note that you couldn't offer any evidence to refute my statements. In what sense is what they are doing "science" ? I say that it's just pseudo-science, trying to prop up falsified religious dogma. It's continued failure to adequately deal with the evidence is proof of that. The order in the fossil record has been known for a long time. Flood geology still can't explain it. Mainstream geology can.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by Buzsaw, posted 10-07-2006 10:57 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by CK, posted 10-08-2006 7:43 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 276 of 285 (355139)
10-08-2006 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 275 by PaulK
10-08-2006 7:25 AM


Re: The wrong idea of fairness
Paul - I would point out that such a discussion is off-topic for this thread.

It is not however going to be off-topic for this topic.....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2006 7:25 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 277 of 285 (355162)
10-08-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by RickJB
10-08-2006 3:16 AM


T o p i c !
Meme's are off topic here RickJB, Thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by RickJB, posted 10-08-2006 3:16 AM RickJB has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 278 of 285 (355163)
10-08-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by ReverendDG
10-08-2006 12:08 AM


T o p i c !
Flood geology is off topic here, Rev. Thanks.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ReverendDG, posted 10-08-2006 12:08 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Buzsaw, posted 10-10-2006 8:00 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 285 (355189)
10-08-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by CK
10-07-2006 12:25 PM


Re: A Q and A with myself
So does bad debate drive out good?

I'm not sure but let me give you some anecdotal evidence. In the past I have had offboard email contact with a number of long-term members of the boards - people with strong scientific backgrounds who no longer post. They don't post because they got sick of being dragged down the same deadend on every thread, they got sick of having their expertise rubbished. They got sick of the bullshit to be perfectly honest.

The question that occurs about this is whether this is about specific creationist personalities, or about the less scientific knowledge among the creationists here perhaps, or just in the nature of the evo-creo debate itself.

So the question would be whether this debate has ever gone in a direction that doesn't put off the evo scientists, here or elsewhere.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by CK, posted 10-07-2006 12:25 PM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by NosyNed, posted 10-08-2006 12:43 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 280 of 285 (355192)
10-08-2006 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Faith
10-08-2006 12:16 PM


Where can the debate go?
So the question would be whether this debate has ever gone in a direction that doesn't put off the evo scientists, here or elsewhere.

Yes.

On occasion someone comes along who doesn't know much; who knows they don't and actually wants to learn something. They actually read what is posted in reply to their questions. They, at least as a start, choose to accept that no one is lying to them.

When they are told they have a fact wrong they listen and don't repeat the error again. They may have more or less of a struggle with dealing with the ramifications of finding out that they had some things wrong but at least they are capable of learning.

Some choose to leave early on when they find out things aren't as they thought. Others hang around to learn more.

What these few do NOT do is repeat the same errors over and over. They do not accuse everyone of lying to them.

It is, I think, NOT a matter of less scientific knowledge on anyones part. The difference is a willingness to not simply say that they don't know very much about the science (though that can be hard to come by in itself) but to actually understand what that means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Faith, posted 10-08-2006 12:16 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by CK, posted 10-08-2006 2:32 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
CK
Member (Idle past 2202 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 281 of 285 (355217)
10-08-2006 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by NosyNed
10-08-2006 12:43 PM


Re: Where can the debate go?
Ned hits on a very important point. If you are explaining a point to user X and User X says "oh I need to think more about this", then you feel you are enganged in useful discourse. However when you explain the same point to user X over and over and over and over again and user X keeps implying that you don't know what you are talking about/you are lying/you have your secret atheist bias/you are not a true christian and then also refuses to read any of the material you suggest or even consider reading it - that's hard work.

Dealing with that one individual over and over again is far more likely to get people to stop posting than posting the same point to 100 different people.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by NosyNed, posted 10-08-2006 12:43 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Admin, posted 10-09-2006 8:33 AM CK has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 282 of 285 (355351)
10-09-2006 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by CK
10-08-2006 2:32 PM


Re: Where can the debate go?
One other thing we have to keep in mind is the democratization of the Internet with regard to technical and/or scientific savvy. Ten to fifteen years ago, creationists who participated in on-line debate tended to be of a technical bent. That's no longer the case. We're getting increasing numbers of contributors who, if we're honest with ourselves but hopefully don't give voice to this, cause us to think, "Can anyone truly be this stupid or ignorant or blind?"

The answer, unfortunately, is yes. EvC Forum is not going to successfully educate waves of the uneducatable. The best we can do is shield ourselves from those unwilling or unable to intelligently discuss and/or explore a topic by enforcing the Forum Guidelines. Sadly this will exclude some truly nice people, but it can't be helped.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by CK, posted 10-08-2006 2:32 PM CK has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Michael, posted 10-09-2006 5:39 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Michael
Member (Idle past 2712 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 283 of 285 (355433)
10-09-2006 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Admin
10-09-2006 8:33 AM


evolution
I get the feeling that we are about to see some punctuation to the equilibrium here at EvC.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Admin, posted 10-09-2006 8:33 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 285 (355748)
10-10-2006 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by ReverendDG
10-08-2006 12:08 AM


Re: The wrong idea of fairness
RDG writes:

i'd like to see this shown someday, all i've seen from the creationist side is faulty research and fudged evidence that turns out to be wrong

Regardless of your biased assessment of the research done by creationist scientists, research is part doing science. Creationist minded scientists over the centuries have likely done more overall to actually benefit the lives of mankind than evolutionist ones have.


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
This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by ReverendDG, posted 10-08-2006 12:08 AM ReverendDG has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 285 of 285 (355761)
10-10-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by AdminNosy
10-08-2006 8:43 AM


Re: T o p i c !
My apologies for addressing Revs message, AdminNosy. I went directly to the message from my profile and posted before I saw your off topic warning.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by AdminNosy, posted 10-08-2006 8:43 AM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415161718
19
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019