Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A general discussion of debate (goals)
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 16 of 57 (364428)
11-17-2006 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Percy
11-17-2006 6:47 PM


How is this a disagreement?
It seems to me that you've simply restated my assertation that for the fundamentalist, the evidence is pliable and should be changed to fit answers which have already been given.
This differs from science where they evidence is the given and used to determine the answers.
I agree, that when you assume that you are already correct and can pick and choose your evidence, even alter it, to fit what you've already declared, your job is much much easier.
It's just unfortunate that none of what is generated by fundamentalist scientists has any use outside of their philosophy.
I mean, you wouldn't want to try and buy medicine from a fundamentalist pharmacy would you? Since there are never any new diseases, and therefore no need for new cures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Percy, posted 11-17-2006 6:47 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 11-17-2006 8:03 PM Nuggin has replied
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2006 10:40 PM Nuggin has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 17 of 57 (364432)
11-17-2006 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Chiroptera
11-17-2006 6:32 PM


quote:
The main purpose I post on boards like this is the challenge of writing a good, logical, clear statement. It is a pretty enjoyable exercise for me. Even as the same old PRATTs come up again and again, I like to see if I can restate the actual facts and reasoning in a different, perhaps clearer way, and to try out completely different lines of argument. I recognize that some of my attempts at a different approach end up falling flat, but, hey, that just makes it more of an accomplishment when I hit one that works.
Also, even if I am answering the same old question for the 100th time, sometimes I gleen new insights either from further study on the matter, or as I think a little deeper on it. Sometimes these insights are not appropriate or off-topic for the post I am answering at the time, but the new insights are illuminating nonetheless.
Also, I am sometimes surprised and pleased to see a new creationist tactic or argument that I have not yet seen before, or I have not yet had the opportunity to respond. This makes the debate even more fun, as I then have to think of a counter argument from scratch.
Yes, I agree that the debate is great, on many levels, as an intellectual exercise. I enjoy that aspect as well.
I certainly have become much more competent over the years from all the practice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Chiroptera, posted 11-17-2006 6:32 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 57 (364435)
11-17-2006 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
11-17-2006 1:54 PM


Re: Group Think
NWR writes:
That depends on what you mean by "true fundamentalist". Some fundies become fundies as children, but later learn to think for themselves and throw off that fundamentalism. We have examples among the scientists on this forum.
I don't know that there's a table of stats on this, but many scientists go Biblical from being avid evolutionists due to the evidence they find as to the problems of evolution and due to the evidence they discover as to the credibility of the Biblical record as per things like fullfilled prophecy, personal experiences, statistics of social benefits, et al. You don't find those people here where their views are unacceptable so most here are unaware of the number of them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 11-17-2006 1:54 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by anglagard, posted 11-17-2006 7:34 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 20 by Chiroptera, posted 11-17-2006 7:59 PM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 23 by Nuggin, posted 11-18-2006 12:34 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 32 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 10:23 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 19 of 57 (364441)
11-17-2006 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
11-17-2006 7:21 PM


Re: Group Think
Nothing like having the courage of your convictions. Especially in Hovind's case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2006 7:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 57 (364448)
11-17-2006 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
11-17-2006 7:21 PM


Re: Group Think
quote:
...many scientists go Biblical from being avid evolutionists due to the evidence they find as to the problems of evolution and due to the evidence they discover as to the credibility of the Biblical record as per things like fullfilled prophecy, personal experiences, statistics of social benefits, et al.
I guess I'm not sure how many is "many"; I am not aware of very many scientists who have done this. Most of the "scientists" who have rejected evolution work in fields where they do not experience the evidence directly, and/or have a religious conversion first (or a deepening of their commitment to their faith) and then accept a literal Genesis based on their religious commitment as opposed to any real evaluation of evidence.
On the other hand, there are lots of people who actually do "convert" from fundamentalist literalism to accepting scientific evolution when they learn the facts of the matter; I am one of them, I have met several others, and I have seen on-line discussions with many more.
It would be interesting to see actual stats on the matter, and of those who "convert" one way to the other, to see how much they really know about the subject matter.

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2006 7:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 21 of 57 (364451)
11-17-2006 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Nuggin
11-17-2006 7:11 PM


Re: How is this a disagreement?
Nuggin writes:
It seems to me that you've simply restated my assertation that for the fundamentalist, the evidence is pliable and should be changed to fit answers which have already been given.
No, I didn't say that, not by any means. Allow me to quote myself: "Fundamentalist scientists value facts and evidence as much as any scientists."
The world is a very complicated place because it reflects the mind of our Lord, a mind of infinite complexity. Any scientist will tell you that we don't have all the answers, and what looks obvious today may not always appear so.
This differs from science where they evidence is the given and used to determine the answers.
Fundamentalist scientists work in the exact same way.
I agree, that when you assume that you are already correct and can pick and choose your evidence, even alter it, to fit what you've already declared, your job is much much easier.
It's just unfortunate that none of what is generated by fundamentalist scientists has any use outside of their philosophy.
I mean, you wouldn't want to try and buy medicine from a fundamentalist pharmacy would you? Since there are never any new diseases, and therefore no need for new cures.
If you'd like to constructively seek an understanding of the fundamentalist approach to science then I'm with you all the way, but if your inclination is to cast unsupported assertions then I cannot join you.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Nuggin, posted 11-17-2006 7:11 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Nuggin, posted 11-18-2006 12:38 AM Percy has replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 57 (364472)
11-17-2006 10:40 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Nuggin
11-17-2006 7:11 PM


Re: How is this a disagreement?
Nuggin writes:
I mean, you wouldn't want to try and buy medicine from a fundamentalist pharmacy would you? Since there are never any new diseases, and therefore no need for new cures.
I wouldn't spend a penny on a one of any prescription drugs and most over the counter drugs including aspirin. The wholistic practitioners are the ones healing bodies, not symptoms with all the side effects being good as opposed to terrible side effects including death warnings on the medicine bottles. The last drug I took was about 35 years ago and it put me into a 24 hour coma. I haven't been to a Dr's office since and all my medicines are fundamentalist wholistic herbal, vitamin, mineral, diet remedies and preventions, fundamental to good health since the year one. Medicine/health care is money driven with the pharmaceuticals getting rich off of the people's illnesses and the MD's cashing in via the knife, the needle and the pill dominating their practice. This is about all they've been indoctrinated into in the med schools. I also raised my boys without MDs with one 5 minute expensive broken shoulder support applied by an MD. Try to find a professional auto repair shop that doesn't rip you off or do sloppy repair. LOL. They're out there but scarce. Whether it's religion, media, education, medicine, or whatever, the professionals often operate on a money driven system.
(abe: I've said the above to say fundie debate and fundie practice quality depends on what those fundamentals are. Most of you people do and respect fundie science, so we're all fundies debating fundamentals in our own right. Right?)
Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Nuggin, posted 11-17-2006 7:11 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Nuggin, posted 11-18-2006 12:43 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 27 by purpledawn, posted 11-18-2006 7:52 AM Buzsaw has not replied
 Message 55 by nator, posted 11-19-2006 7:30 AM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 23 of 57 (364487)
11-18-2006 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Buzsaw
11-17-2006 7:21 PM


Re: Group Think
I would be amazed if you could find one "scientist" who changed his opinion about evolution based on the "statisics of social benefit".
This is tantamount to saying you've got a list of mathematicians who've turned their back on numbers because they've discovered that thirteen is unlucky.
Those "mathematicians" may self identify as such, but just because someone wears a cape, it doesn't mean they can fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2006 7:21 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 24 of 57 (364489)
11-18-2006 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Percy
11-17-2006 8:03 PM


Re: How is this a disagreement?
Fundamentalist scientists work in the exact same way.
Come on. You know this to be false.
Scientists collect data and see what conclusions can be drawn from that data.
By your own admision the fundamentalists HAVE the conclusions already. Therefore the collection of data is completely unneccesary, and worse, dangerous. Since often the data points in the opposite direction of their conclusion, they must first collect the data, then discard it out of hand.
To say that these two groups work on the same principles is to intentionally mislead anyone who might be reading these boards.
I find that no only disingenuous, but frankly, in a vocabulary that fundamentalists understand so well, bordering on Satanic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Percy, posted 11-17-2006 8:03 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 11-18-2006 7:11 AM Nuggin has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 25 of 57 (364490)
11-18-2006 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
11-17-2006 10:40 PM


Fundamental Medicines? Oxymoronic
Why would you use fundamentalist medicine? Since there are no diseases which havent existed since the beginning of time, the diseases which can be cured have, and those which can't be cured, cant.
Medicine can serve absolutely no purpose for you, if you truly believe.
The fact that you attempt to "heal" yourself using medicines implies to me that you think that there is some sort of change going on - thus you are violating the core precepts of fundamentalist group think.
Which is it? Are you a lock and step fundamentalist or are you just kidding yourself about your belief system?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2006 10:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 26 of 57 (364509)
11-18-2006 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Nuggin
11-18-2006 12:38 AM


Re: How is this a disagreement?
Nuggin writes:
Fundamentalist scientists work in the exact same way.
Come on. You know this to be false.
I was at first put off by this, but then I realized that this false conclusion isn't your fault, it's our fault. Most fundamentalists are people of faith, not science, and they're poorly equipped to defend, or even just to understand, the science that is done by fundamentalist scientists. Denial does everything to hurt one's credibility, and so I will be the first to concede that religion is fertile ground for the charlatan and the conman, and there are plenty of them out there. The Bible warns to beware of false prophets, but many sincere Christians forget that mere fellow followers of the faith can be false, too. Not everyone who proclaims himself a Christian is on the true path.
So, to address your concerns, yes, fundamentalist science is based upon facts and evidence and observation just like all science. If you have any doubt of that then we can talk about specifics. Just to save you some time, Wyatt was a charlatan and a buffoon, Kent Hovind is worse, Duane Gish isn't far behind, and the Discovery Institute's eclectic approach to science is having a significant influence only because it has substantial money backing it, not because the fundamentalist scientists working under its auspices buy into such monuments to dissembling and dishonesty as the wedge document, no matter what they might say in order to retain access to one of the few significant sources of funding for fundamentalist science research.
By your own admision the fundamentalists HAVE the conclusions already.
We have the truth already, but when you say conclusions you mean scientific conclusions. Scientific conclusions, i.e., theory, are not truth, and scientifically the evidence does not support the Biblical truth at this time. But as I said earlier, the mind of God is extremely complex, and his universe reflects that complexity. It may even be expecting too much of science to expect truth to emerge from simple examination and analysis of the evidence from the natural universe. In other words, evidence of the truth of the Bible may never be found, but that is a weakness of science, not of truth and God's word. And even though the evidence of truth that fundamentalist scientists seek may simply not exist, we cannot know that, and so we must labor on in the hope that it does exist.
I find that no only disingenuous, but frankly, in a vocabulary that fundamentalists understand so well, bordering on Satanic.
I don't think this is helpful.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.
Edited by Percy, : Formatting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Nuggin, posted 11-18-2006 12:38 AM Nuggin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2006 8:43 AM Percy has replied
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 10:14 AM Percy has not replied

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 27 of 57 (364514)
11-18-2006 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Buzsaw
11-17-2006 10:40 PM


Short OT
Amen.
Maybe you can start a thread on the holistic path. I have a naturopathic doctor.
I'm curious about the fact that you didn't take your kids to the doctor.
Did you not have to give them vaccinations? That may have been before schools required them.
I'm new on the natural path, so maybe we can have a thread to share info.
Don't answer here. Sorry for the interruption.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2006 10:40 PM Buzsaw has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-18-2006 10:38 AM purpledawn has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 28 of 57 (364522)
11-18-2006 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Percy
11-18-2006 7:11 AM


Re: One man's "truth"
We have the truth already, but when you say conclusions you mean scientific conclusions. Scientific conclusions, i.e., theory, are not truth, and scientifically the evidence does not support the Biblical truth at this time.
Nor will it, for the "truth" you have is not TRUTH at all but an illusion. As a TRUE scientist and follower of the Ruchira Avatar, Adi Da Samraj, I am fully aware of the TRUTH and how TRUTH and science walk hand-in-hand in blissful company. The "truth" you have created for yoursleves is a construct from your egoic mind, and you are deluded. But once you experience TRUTH for yourself, you will give up on such foolish notions of the "flood" and other illusions, and your eyes will be opened to the true possibilities of science.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Percy, posted 11-18-2006 7:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 11-18-2006 9:53 AM cavediver has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 29 of 57 (364530)
11-18-2006 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by cavediver
11-18-2006 8:43 AM


Re: One man's "truth"
I am indeed happy for you that you have found truth in following Adi Da Samraj:
He apparently has a number of names or titles: The Da Avatar, Adi Da Samraj, the Ruchira Buddha and Ruchira Avatar. They means things like "descended from the Divine", "Supreme Lord" and "the Radiant, Shining, Bright One". Interesting.
cavediver writes:
The "truth" you have created for yoursleves is a construct from your egoic mind, and you are deluded.
I suppose those who believe truth is so simple that there can be only one truth, more accurately, one expression of truth, have to believe this.
The characterization of the creation/evolution debate in Message 1 simply says that creationists are scientific irrationalists unable to properly interpret evidence. This is unquestionably true of many who come here and who visit other discussion boards around the net. This is because my brothers in Christ are primarily people of faith, not science, and their meager comprehension of the nature of scientific inquiry leads them to make bold and nonsensical declarations reminiscent of Billy Sunday's ignorant, "When the Word of God says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go to hell."
Unfortunately, many laboring in the name of fundamentalist science make the same mistake as the ever-present declarators of the imminent second coming by repeatedly making extremely premature claims of reconciliation of material evidence with Biblical truth. It started with Morris's ridiculous vapor canopy, extended through silly claims like hydrologic sorting, and continues today with things like Baumgardner's catastrophic plate tectonics, Humphreys' Starlight and Time ideas, and Dembski and Gitt's misguided information theories. These "creation scientists" give fundamentalist science a bad name with their premature and contradictory claims.
True fundamentalist scientists know that we are not so close as those mentioned above mislead many sincere evangelicals into believing, and by this they do great damage. Being Christian and doing science does not mean turning off your brain. Staring at contradictions and declaring them not to be contradictions is not the way fundamentalist science is going to successfully portray itself as true science.
True fundamentalist scientists understand this. That is why their voice is much more quiet and you don't hear from them or about them on the Internet. The time to go public is when you have legitimate results to announce and not before. In the meantime all believing Christians should remember that it is faith and salvation that are important and rest confidently in the knowledge that the current creation/evolution conundrum is merely a minor puzzle of the current era that will one day be resolved.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2006 8:43 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by jar, posted 11-18-2006 10:05 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 39 by cavediver, posted 11-18-2006 11:55 AM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 30 of 57 (364533)
11-18-2006 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Percy
11-18-2006 9:53 AM


Re: One man's "truth"
He apparently has a number of names or titles: The Da Avatar, Adi Da Samraj, the Ruchira Buddha and Ruchira Avatar. They means things like "descended from the Divine", "Supreme Lord" and "the Radiant, Shining, Bright One". Interesting.
You must not forget "Bubba Free John".

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Percy, posted 11-18-2006 9:53 AM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024