Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fact Theory Falacy
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 92 of 136 (4509)
02-14-2002 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Quetzal
02-14-2002 5:34 AM


i get it now, and that explained everything. thanks
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Quetzal, posted 02-14-2002 5:34 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 136 (4539)
02-15-2002 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by TrueCreation
02-14-2002 11:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--I'm not sure, but what about the other famous scientists who were creationists?

What famous scientists who were creationists (POST darwin, if you please, preferably in the last 50 years or so)?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by TrueCreation, posted 02-14-2002 11:31 AM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 2:33 PM toff has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 136 (4544)
02-15-2002 4:56 AM


KingPenguin- if oil was drained from the planet, oil prices would soar. The result would be that humans would be forced to conserve and find new energy sources, We are capable of this, and it could be accomplished with great urgency.
Thank you

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 02-15-2002 5:10 AM quicksink has replied
 Message 100 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 3:39 PM quicksink has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 95 of 136 (4545)
02-15-2002 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by quicksink
02-15-2002 4:56 AM


Quicksink,
If you look at the bottom of a post there is a reply option. If you use this, then a poster can 1/ see who has replied to their post, & 2/ If they see your reply, can see it was in response to them, & the message no. in particular.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 4:56 AM quicksink has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 5:28 AM mark24 has replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 136 (4547)
02-15-2002 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by mark24
02-15-2002 5:10 AM


Thank you very much. I'm still learning.
>I'm not quite sure what you mean as your signature. Occams razor, if im not mistaken, is the premise that the simple answer is the correct one. What do you mean by "occam's razor is not to be shaved with?
Thank you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 02-15-2002 5:10 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by mark24, posted 02-15-2002 5:41 AM quicksink has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 97 of 136 (4548)
02-15-2002 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by quicksink
02-15-2002 5:28 AM


Occams razor says if you have a body of evidence, then the best hypothesis is the one that explains ALL evidence, & doesn't try to explain more. eg The Biblical Flood may explain SOME features (&most of those features are debateable), if it can't explain them all, then it is a poorer model than the mainstream geological one.
If you looked at an ox bow lake on a river, you would look at existing meandering bows, examine their depths etc & conclude that an ox bow lake is a "cut off" bow of a river which may/may not have dried out. To attribute more than the evidence implies means you are trying to make a point that actually has no relevance to the information you have. ie conclude that an ox bow lake is a "cut off" bow of a river which may have dried out, & that God guided the river to cut the bow off from the main river.
By "Occam's razor is not for shaving", I mean be careful what you conclude from evidence.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-15-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 5:28 AM quicksink has not replied

  
quicksink
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 136 (4549)
02-15-2002 5:50 AM


Thanks for the clarification. You learn something new everyday.
Thanks

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 99 of 136 (4719)
02-16-2002 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by toff
02-15-2002 3:17 AM


"What famous scientists who were creationists (POST darwin, if you please, preferably in the last 50 years or so)?"
--This is a good book on the subject: In Six Days - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation - http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-117
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by toff, posted 02-15-2002 3:17 AM toff has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by wj, posted 02-18-2002 12:56 AM TrueCreation has not replied
 Message 105 by toff, posted 02-18-2002 6:06 AM TrueCreation has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 100 of 136 (4725)
02-16-2002 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by quicksink
02-15-2002 4:56 AM


quote:
Originally posted by quicksink:
KingPenguin- if oil was drained from the planet, oil prices would soar. The result would be that humans would be forced to conserve and find new energy sources, We are capable of this, and it could be accomplished with great urgency.
Thank you

i would still be able to sell the oil for a rediculous amount of money and still collect the ransom. its not like the entire world can go from gas to water in even a year.
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by quicksink, posted 02-15-2002 4:56 AM quicksink has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 9:18 PM KingPenguin has replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 136 (4793)
02-16-2002 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by KingPenguin
02-16-2002 3:39 PM


"i would still be able to sell the oil for a rediculous amount of money and still collect the ransom. its not like the entire world can go from gas to water in even a year."
--If oil source were depleted to that degree, naturally produced oil would be worth more than platinum. I don't really get the point of the argument, but oh well (shrugs).
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by KingPenguin, posted 02-16-2002 3:39 PM KingPenguin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by KingPenguin, posted 02-17-2002 5:06 PM TrueCreation has replied

  
KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 7883 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 102 of 136 (4843)
02-17-2002 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 9:18 PM


i dont think there is a point
------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 9:18 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by TrueCreation, posted 02-17-2002 11:38 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 136 (4894)
02-17-2002 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by KingPenguin
02-17-2002 5:06 PM


"i dont think there is a point"
--I think we strayed way out of the context of the intended usage of this thread, it seemed to start its backdrop way back towards post #3 of this thread!
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by KingPenguin, posted 02-17-2002 5:06 PM KingPenguin has not replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 136 (4897)
02-18-2002 12:56 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 2:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"What famous scientists who were creationists (POST darwin, if you please, preferably in the last 50 years or so)?"
--This is a good book on the subject: In Six Days - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation - http://shop.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/AIGUS.storefront/en/product/10-2-117

TC, note that toff asked about FAMOUS scientists who believe in creationism. The 50 cited in John Aston's book are hardly famous, except some for being creationists. Here is an interesting review of Ashton's book by Colin Groves: http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/cg_in_six_days.htm
He makes the following interesting and pertinent observations about the 50:
"There are 9 biologists, 13 others connected with the life sciences, and 28 working in other sciences. Of the "other life scientists" (not strict biologists), five were trained in biochemistry, two in medicine, two in horticultural/agricultural science, and one each in genetics, organic chemistry, forestry and orthodontics. Of the 28 - the majority - trained in some field other than the life sciences, we have six trained in chemistry (not organic), five in some form of engineering, five in some branch of physics, three in meteorology, three in geology, two in geophysics, and one each in mathematics, geography, hydrometallurgy and information science."
It appears that creationsists in fields directly related to evolutionary science are a bit thin on the ground.
"Put them in perspective a bit. Of those nine biologists, five were trained at least in part at religious foundation universities or colleges of one kind or another: one at Loma Linda, one at Pacific Union College, one at both Andrews University and George Mason University, two at Wheaton College (and one of them at Houghton College in addition); only four received their entire training at what I’d call "proper universities", and some of them specify that their classes in evolution were poor in some way - a hectoring or poorly prepared lecturer, for instance. Of the 12 (excluding Hosken) others connected with the life sciences, four were trained at religious institutions (Loma Linda and Andrews again, Dordt College, and Loyola University), and eight at "proper universities". Of the other 28, only three trained at religious institutions (Loyola again, Loma Linda yet again, and Phillips University), and all the rest went to mainline universities, polytechnics and so on. Could there be some significance here? Might it be that a biologist is much less inclined than others to be a creationist unless actually trained at an institution with a creationist tendency?"
"And how did they become creationists? ... Of those who do give their histories, no fewer than 17 were brought up as creationists; one was converted while he was in the U.S.Navy, before starting university; five were converted during their university careers; four were converted later in life (one of them by his wife). It is fair to say that, inasfar as one can tell from reading their own words, all of those who were converted were already devout, and simply waiting to be pushed... Let us note that not one of them purports to have become a creationist as a result of his or her own research."
Groves' analysis of why the 50 scientists are creationists is also revealing but I leave it to the interested reader to pursue for themselves. But one piece is worth repeating here:
"Less forthright, but still quite a cut above the usual dismal crowd, is Elaine Kennedy, who begins her chapter, "As a geologist, I do not find much evidence for the existence of a fiat creation. I just have not found any geologic data that convinces me that God spoke and 'it was'" (p.293). She then goes on to say how she struggled with radiometric dating and has finally concluded that such dates are interpretations, not data, but "Those of us who believe in a short chronology and a six-day creation do not have an adequate explanation for radiometric dates" (p.294)."
It appears that those creationists with good scientific training have to go into a state of denial to enable them to reconcile scientific evidence and 6 day creationism.
I suppose Ashton did the best he could with the material he had available to him. The end result is hardly a ringing endorsement of a convincing scientific basis for creationism and against evolution by probably some the the best scientifically qualified creationists alive today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 2:33 PM TrueCreation has not replied

  
toff
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 136 (4913)
02-18-2002 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by TrueCreation
02-16-2002 2:33 PM


quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
what about the other famous scientists who were creationists?

I'll try again, since my last attempt failed. I didn't ask for a book about creationists who had some scientific qualifications. I asked WHAT famous scientists who were/are creationist (post darwin, preferably in the last 50 years)? Can you even supply ONE?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by TrueCreation, posted 02-16-2002 2:33 PM TrueCreation has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by wj, posted 02-19-2002 6:26 PM toff has not replied
 Message 107 by TrueCreation, posted 02-19-2002 6:32 PM toff has replied

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 136 (5097)
02-19-2002 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by toff
02-18-2002 6:06 AM


Toff, I am afraid that, like many things which creationists are unable to provide a satisfactory answer to, a position of denial has been adopted. If your question is ignored for long enough, it will simply disappear from view and can be safely forgotten, as if the question had never been asked, and the awkward lack of an answer will not linger, to raise doubt in the minds of the thoughtful and uncommitted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by toff, posted 02-18-2002 6:06 AM toff 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