Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Science in church?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 25 of 35 (483072)
09-19-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by johnfolton
09-19-2008 8:34 PM


Crank?
I then basically said creationism is held to a higher standard and should not be taught with the lies of an old earth, and with the missing transistional fossils.
It sounds like you are calling me a liar.
1) I do a lot of radiocarbon dating, and have come up with a lot of dates older than 4004 B.C. I do not regard those dates, which I use in my archaeological research, as lies.
2) I studied fossil man and several related subjects in graduate school, for six years. I saw a lot of transitionals, and I personally handled casts of most of the important specimens at that time (a couple of decades ago). Thousands of transitionals exist--I have seen many of them. Are you calling me a liar on that as well?
Seems like your mind has been poisoned by fundamentalism so that you can't evaluate any evidence that contradicts your a priori religious beliefs.
So you just go ahead and call me a liar. I'll just consider the source.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 8:34 PM johnfolton has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 27 of 35 (483083)
09-19-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by johnfolton
09-19-2008 8:34 PM


You up to the challenge?
AdminNosy writes:
Since dating is basic to much of the debate, you [johnfolton] need to go to the Dating forum (especially the "correlations" one) and support your assertions.
Until you are intellectually honest enough to do that you will shut about about old or young earth issues. If you bring them up without support again you will get some suspensions.
How about it johnfolton? Care to take up carbon 14 dating in the Dating forum? Care to try to show how it is inaccurate and fails to support an old earth?
Can you support your argument, for a change, instead of just making unsupported assertions? Can you debate the issue without relying on the falsehoods and misrepresentations common on the creationist websites?
If so, we'll see you on the Dating forum.
If not, well--see tagline.
Edited by Coyote, : Spelling

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by johnfolton, posted 09-19-2008 8:34 PM johnfolton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by johnfolton, posted 09-20-2008 1:13 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 35 (483396)
09-21-2008 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Blue Jay
09-21-2008 10:20 PM


Which parts are true and which parts are not?
"Church is not a forum for debate," they like to say, which is unfortunate, because there is no way provided for people to discern which parts of what is said are true and which parts are not.
You are not supposed to "discern which parts of what is said are true and which parts are not."
You are supposed to believe what they tell you, and to take their word for it. That is the basis for organized religions.
Perhaps a Heinlein quote says it best:
The profession of shaman has many advantages. It offers high status with a safe livelihood free of work in the dreary, sweaty sense. In most societies it offers legal privileges and immunities not granted to other men. But it is hard to see how a man who has been given a mandate from on High to spread tidings of joy to all mankind can be seriously interested in taking up a collection to pay his salary; it causes one to suspect that the shaman is on the moral level of any other con man.
But it's lovely work if you can stomach it.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 10:20 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 11:18 PM Coyote has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 35 of 35 (483403)
09-21-2008 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Blue Jay
09-21-2008 11:18 PM


Re: Which parts are true and which parts are not?
This is also their complaint against science: "They won't let me teach my idea!"
When you put it like that, it is a bit hypocritical: they shouldn't claim the privilege to do to other groups what they wouldn't let those other groups do to them.
In science, evidence will win out in the end. Sometimes it takes a while, but at least there are methods to differentiate between various claims and evidences.
With religions you just have splits and schisms, leading to an estimated 43,000 Christian sects, branches, denominations, or unaffiliated groups in the US and an estimated 4,000 different world religions.
Thanks, I'll stick to science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Blue Jay, posted 09-21-2008 11:18 PM Blue Jay 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