|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13040 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
As I recently stated in the admin forum, introducing Biblical or religious ideas in the science threads is fine as long as they're accompanied by scientific evidence. But absent any evidence there's nothing to discuss or rebut except the Bible and religion, which would make it a religious discussion and therefore inappropriate for the science forums.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I'm not debating it. I'm agreeing with you. The case for the Flood depends on a belief in the literal truth of the Bible, just as you said.
quote: You're not "disallowed". You're admitting defeat and running away from the science fora, being unable to support your views without relying on Biblical authority.
quote: I didn't oppose that. Although any creationists who want to claim that the Flood is scientifically supportable ought to. I simply point out your admission of defeat, the tension between it and your statements of only a few days ago - and a warning that moving to Faith and Belief will be less help than you might think.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hi Buz,
It was addressing a problem as to whether Bible-creos should be allowed to refer to the Bible as record according to our flood/canopy ideology... I almost never debate flood geology, simply because I don't have the necessary geology background to make it stick (this does not hold true for some of the peripheral issues, such as biogeography, in which I do). However, I'd like to point out that you may be misunderstanding something here. Anyone will accept creo use of the Bible as a valid historical record IF and only IF there is corroborating external evidence to support that use. In other words, there has to be some physical evidence produced that indicates the historical reliability of the book. This works, btw, for any other document, paper or indeed book that anyone - creo or not - introduces as support for their respective positions. IOW, you can't enter into evidence something that is asserted to be factual without showing evidence that it really is. Regardless of whether you personally think the Bible is accurate, no one else will without some corroboration. Feel free to use the Bible in a science thread. Just be prepared to show how the book is externally validated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Matt Member (Idle past 5570 days) Posts: 99 From: U.K. Joined: |
I don't know if this is the right thread for reporting such things, but the thread Geological timescale and the flood seems to be getting pretty off topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1372 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
there is a high degree of correlation between threads that simple posts in, and threads currently active and hopelessly off-topic.
the "circle of the earth" thread is also pretty far off topic too. not to mention completely broken. do have a thread for "broken topics?"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2198 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Moose, in this post that you complained to me about going off topic, did you perhaps fail to notice that I suggested that ILG start a new thread, and again later suggest he join an existing thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3976 Joined: |
...did you perhaps fail to notice that I suggested that ILG start a new thread, and again later suggest he join an existing thread? And I thank you. I still think that it be best that there be no responses to your message as it is largely a continuation of off-topic theme(s). In general, when an admin posts a moderator message it may well be a rush job based on a quick observation and a limited consideration. Such may or may not prove out to be wrong. But to have any possible useful effect (affect?) something needs to be done ASAP. The alternative is a short term topic closure where all parties can leisurely consider what has happened, prior to the topic moving on. And yes, moderation efforts are highly erratic, highly "hit and miss". The choice is, try to put a dent in problems here and there, or give up on doing moderation all together? Or something like that. Adminnemooseus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
molbiogirl Member (Idle past 2670 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: |
You can take your silly little debate rules and cram them up your ass, cop. Message 40 Would an admin please step in and have a word with CatholicScientist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Adminnemooseus writes: In general, when an admin posts a moderator message it may well be a rush job based on a quick observation and a limited consideration. Such may or may not prove out to be wrong. But to have any possible useful effect (affect?) something needs to be done ASAP. Effect. Though I suppose a forum member could have a useful affect. ASAP action probably wouldn't have any effect on that, though. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Quetzel writes: Feel free to use the Bible in a science thread. Just be prepared to show how the book is externally validated. My statement to which you responded pertained to speech perse and not to actual usage of the Bible as evidence. Creationists have been critiqued for verbally alluding to the Bible as a historical record in some of our messages since there is historical information in it. It's not about claiming infalibility. What historical info can be shown to be true is debatable. Nevertheless we consider it to be what we often refer to as the Biblical record or the Biblical historical record since many of the major historical events from Genesis leading up to the birth of Jesus are referenced in it, including geneologies of messianic forebears. We also reference corroborating evidence relative to lending credibility to the record. I don't refer to the Biblical record as evidence. Rather I sometimes refer to it as a Biblical historical record in debates about events in it because I personally regard it as such. I am not trying to argue that secularists should regard it as such. We all have our opinions about what is credible and what is not. That is what EvC ideological debate is all about. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
So basically you are saying that you want to CALL it history solely because that is your opinion - not as any attempt to suggest that it is true ?
I think that is a bit dubious - but so long as you don't mind it ALSO being referred to as a myth and you DON'T try to use the alleged historicity of it as an argument even implicitly it should be OK. Provided of course you get it right and don't, for instance, try to pretend that the YEC "vapor canopy" is in the Bible - as you have done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Hey Buz,
It's not about claiming infalibility. What historical info can be shown to be true is debatable. Nevertheless we consider it to be what we often refer to as the Biblical record or the Biblical historical record since many of the major historical events from Genesis leading up to the birth of Jesus are referenced in it, including geneologies of messianic forebears. Right. I understand how my opposite numbers attempt to use the Bible in this context. However, you neglected to address my main point, to wit: it is completely reasonable to use the Bible as a reference in any thread, as long as the claims are externally verifiable. IOW, you can't use the Bible (or your faith in same) to verify claims in the Bible. If, just as a for instance, you use the Bible as a reference for a global Flud, you must produce external evidence that there was such a Flud (for example, correlation between putative flood-type deposition from around the world - a "flood layer" that anyone can see). Other historical claims (such as whether or not there was an Exodus), would also need to be externally validated from non-Biblical records of the same time period. When such evidence is produced - depending on quality, of course - then I for one have absolutely no problem with someone using the Bible as an additional reference to support their claims. Using faith in the Bible to support the claims of the Bible is simply circular, and hence invalid. That is where the Bible-believers get into trouble on science threads. They (in general) seem to fail to realize that someone who does not take the Bible as infallible history won't accept claims contained therein without some solid external corroboration.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
If I could reemphasize Quetzal's point, science attempts to find out what is objectively true about the universe. Objective means that the evidence says the same thing to people of all races and religions. You can't offer evidence acceptable only to people of a particular religious belief. Evidence with that particular quality is not evidence but faith.
It is therefore completely unscientific to accept something as true without corroboration. The theories in science in which we have the greatest confidence are those with the greatest corroboration, i.e., those that are woven most tightly into the fabric of science. There is no scientific evidence corroborating the interpretations of the creation stories in the Bible. Notice that I said "interpretations", because this lack of corroborating evidence makes it possible for fundamentalists to endorse many different interpretations. Walt Brown interprets the Bible to say the universe is billions of years old, while Ken Ham interprets the Bible to say the universe is at most 10,000 years old. ICR interprets the Bible in such a way that they conclude there was a vapor canopy, while the Discovery Institute interprets the Bible to endorse intelligent design. In other words, if one is ignoring real-world evidence, one can draw whatever conclusions one likes, but they'll all be different conclusions, and they won't have any correspondence to reality. --Percy
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Quetzel writes: Using faith in the Bible to support the claims of the Bible is simply circular, and hence invalid. That is where the Bible-believers get into trouble on science threads. Using faith in the Bible to support claims of the Bible is not what I do or what I am positing. We all know that any debate about the Genesis flood comes from the Biblical record. All I am asking is that Biblicalist members be allowed to refer to the Bible as a historical record in our speech. That has nothing to do with support or evidence It is simply how we describe the alleged historical flood and/or Exodus event. Debate relative to our position is about debating evidence which is brought forth in the debates. For example, the evidence debated in the Exodus was such things as the scientific research and photography of Dr Lennart Moller and the physical evidences which were cited in the region such as the topography of the beach area, the inscriptions, unusual split rock with dried up waterway, burnt top mountain, etc. How can you construe all this as supporting the Biblical record with the record itself perse, implying that we offer no physical evidence? The OT is every bit as much about alleged history than about faith. The debates are about falsification and/or support as to the credibility of that historical record. Until imperically falsified, the debate goes on. Why should this debate board forbid Biblicalist members from referring this book to what to what we claim it to be, a historical record. That is not to say that anyone should necessarily consider any historical record to be totally accurate. For that matter many believe that a lot of modern history has been revisionist distorted accounts designed to be politically correct. That is debatable, but nevertheless some would still regard it as an inaccurate distorted historical record just as you think Edited by Buzsaw, : clarification BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: So basically you are saying that you want to CALL it history solely because that is your opinion - not as any attempt to suggest that it is true ? Where did you get that silly notion from? It is demeaning without evidence or support.
Edited by AdminPD, : Warning BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024