Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
589 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tanypteryx (3 members, 586 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,130 Year: 4,242/6,534 Month: 456/900 Week: 162/150 Day: 8/8 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Constitutes By Definition, Evidence Of Supernatural Phenomena
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1 of 6 (631850)
09-03-2011 6:31 PM


The primary #1 definition of evidence from the Free Online Dictionary:

quote:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis

Due to the fact that I have been singled out by Admin and other members as rarely, if ever, posting evidence in the debating fora. Cases in point would be Biblical prophecy and the Exodus threads.

Admin has suggested that I propose a topic to debate/discuss the topic of evidence and what constitutes evidence. He has intimated that this may be necessary so as to reconsider my participation in the science forums.

I've thought long and hard on the reasons I've been singled out. I have come to realize that there is, indeed, a reason; that being that much of what I debate relates to where the rubber meets the road regarding the existing of supernatural phenomena.

Much of what active members like Iano, ICant and the Christian evolutionists post are faith based, requiring no evidence, whereas much of my activity relates to phenomena requiring evidence.

Problem: It's an established fact that no evolutionist, secularist or otherwise will ever acknowledge evidence of supernatural phenomena, such as ID creationism, fulfilled prophecy or evidence of the Exodus event. To do so would be to undermine their own secularistic mindset; that is, mind set.

It has been argued that my own constituency rejects much of my cited evidence, such as the Exodus and the prophecies.

First off, who are these? Which members of EvC are these? Phat is an evolutionist. I'm not sure about Purpledawn. Is she creationist or evolutionist? Phat is an evolutionist. To my knowledge, he contributes little in the phenomena debates. They are not his forte. There are others who have only a passing interest in things like The Exodus or prophecy. There are some newer members who don't come to mind, some of who may have rejected my evidence. Perhaps they will come forward.

Institution For Creation Research has their own minds set to the extent that they show no interest in researching the Aqaba site or the Wyatt, Fassold et al discovery in the foothills of Ararat of a formation the length of the Biblical ark, accompanied by what appears to be ballast stones; one or more having inscriptions depicting 8 people and a boat; inscriptions not contemporary to Noah, but nevertheless, old.

Morris, et al at ICR, having launched numerous expeditions up high in Mt. Ararat, doggedly refuse to consider any other site, notwithstanding that it would be impossible for many hoofed animals to disembark at such rugged heights, etc.

ICR's text books and other educational criteria depict the traditional Mt. Sinai as the real Sinai, eliminating the Aqaba site as a possibility. Why? Because they are reluctant to admit error and to retool, so to speak, all of their criteria.

Ken Ham, founder of AIG comes from ICR. What applies to ICR, generally applies to AIG. I consider them all as brothers in Christ. I share their views on much of the good work that they do, but LOL on changing their mindset on some major issues.

Pastors and other creationists educated in the seminaries and educational institutions have little knowledge or interest in the prophecies. These schools tend to evade supernatural phenomena like the prophecies. Thus the ignorance or interest from sheeple sitting in the pews.

Also, most teach pre-tribulation rapture falsely thinking that little of fulfilled prophecy will affect them before being raptured out. LOL on that. Again, LOL on any of them supporting anything that I post regarding phenomena evidence.

No amount of evidence which I post supportive to fulfilled prophecy will ever be acknowledge by the secularist counterparts who debate me on these. Nor is any creationist having little interest in or little knowledge of the prophecies expected to contribute much on my behalf in the prophecy debates.

In summary, no amount of evidence that I post will be considered viable by moderators or members of EvC. Having explained the above, however, perhaps moderators; particularly Admin will understand my dilemma and reconsider my participation in the science fora.

If Admin and others will check out the science threads in which I have participated, they will find that I am careful not to delve into science debates beyond my capability or knowledge.

There are times when, though I am not educated in given science topics I cite logical problems to something that is alleged. Case in point would be my last message in the one on one Great Debate with Moose regarding fossil dating. Another would be logical problems which I've alluded to regarding the BB alleged singularity or whatever premises the BB, having no time, space or outside of in which to have existed or expanded into. There is no hard evidence for theory premising the alleged BB or of the degree of billions of years of uniformitism, all the way from the zero event to the present, necessary for establishing BB theory.

Imo, what's good for he goose is good for the gander. By definition, there are variables of evidences. Some are weak, nevertheless supportive. Others are more supportive. Others are conclusive.

I've never claimed any evidence of the Exodus, prophecies, flood, etc to be empirical proof; nevertheless supportive to the hypothesis in question.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 09-03-2011 7:34 PM Buzsaw has taken no action
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 09-03-2011 8:27 PM Buzsaw has replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 2 of 6 (631851)
09-03-2011 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
09-03-2011 6:31 PM


Faith & Belief?
Hi, Buzsaw. I can only promote topics into the Faith & Belief Forum, though I suspect that you clearly want to be taken seriously in the Science Forums.

Buzsaw writes:

Admin has suggested that I propose a topic to debate/discuss the topic of evidence and what constitutes evidence. He has intimated that this may be necessary so as to reconsider my participation in the science forums.... much of what I debate relates to where the rubber meets the road regarding the existence of supernatural phenomena.

I am guessing that the focal point of this topic, if promoted, hinges on the very definition of evidence as it pertains to science. It often helps to know how ones debate opponents think. Do they feel as if your definition of evidence is unlike theirs? Let me know if you want this to be a Faith & Belief topic, since that appears to be the only option, at this point.

Edited by AdminPhat, : added sentence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 09-03-2011 6:31 PM Buzsaw has taken no action

Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 3 of 6 (631852)
09-03-2011 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Buzsaw
09-03-2011 6:31 PM


Hi Buz,

All you need in your opening post is your criteria for what constitutes valid empirical evidence of things that have actually happened or that really exist, along with a couple examples, preferably examples that are aren't drawn from the creation/evolution debate.

You also need to change your title. The type of evidence under scrutiny is of the natural world.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Buzsaw, posted 09-03-2011 6:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 09-03-2011 11:32 PM Admin has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 4 of 6 (631869)
09-03-2011 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
09-03-2011 8:27 PM


Re: Evidence Controversy
Admin writes:

All you need in your opening post is your criteria for what constitutes valid empirical evidence of things that have actually happened or that really exist, along with a couple examples, preferably examples that are aren't drawn from the creation/evolution debate.

Those are matters which I am proposing for open debate. By definition in the Free Online Dictionary #1 definition says this:

quote:
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis
(color mine for emphasis)

A hypothesis does not necessarily eliminate the evidence of supernatural phenomena. If you doggedly eliminate that possibility, essentially rejecting Online Dictionary definition, then I guess you may as well scrap this proposal. I have nowhere to go with it, being you admit to the bias which I've alluded to in the proposal OP, that no evidence of anything supernatural will ever be acknowledged by you.

It's your cite and your prerogative to rule as you wish, but don't expect me to waste my time debating with half my brain tied behind my back by your ruling.

Admin writes:

You also need to change your title. The type of evidence under scrutiny is of the natural world.

What's natural is what exists. That's what the proposed debate is about, whether there is sufficient evidence by definition of any supernatural event.

Case in point is the Exodus event. If it happened it involved natural evidence which would be supportive to the paradigm of the existence of a supernatural entity needful for the event to have happened.

Again, there are degrees of evidence. Even supportive evidence is by definition, evidence. In the science world, there are degees of evidence also. No?

Pray tell, Admin, which has more natural visible on the spot supportive evidence, the alleged zero event premising the alleged expansion, having no place to have existed or expand etc, and requiring an unproven sojourn of billions of years of relative uniformitarianism to have happened or the cited naked eye visible supportive evidences (7 or 8) all lined up in the right order; evidences supportive to the Exodus event?

Hopefully we can get on with debating these issues rather than post after post debating them with you in PNT. There are members like Crashfrog et al biting at the bit awaiting the promotion of this topic.

If evidence of the supernatural is off the table, I have no interest in moving on with the proposal.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 09-03-2011 8:27 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 09-04-2011 6:40 AM Buzsaw has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12788
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 5 of 6 (631884)
09-04-2011 6:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Buzsaw
09-03-2011 11:32 PM


Re: Evidence Controversy
Hi Buz,

In the Exodus thread, had you been looking for evidence that God parted the Red Sea and allowed his people to pass, then you would have been looking for evidence of supernatural phenomena. But you weren't seeking evidence of that event.

You were seeking evidence that a million or so people had passed along a certain route around 1800 BC.

Here's an example of what your thread proposal should be about. Let's say that archaeologists a couple thousand years from now are trying to identify the actual landing site of the Normandy Invasion. What is the nature of the evidence they should be seeking that would establish that location?

If you write a thread proposal laying the groundwork for a discussion about the nature of evidence for events that actually happened or things that actually existed then I will promote it to the Is It Science? forum.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Buzsaw, posted 09-03-2011 11:32 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Buzsaw, posted 09-04-2011 7:56 AM Admin has seen this message

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 6 of 6 (631892)
09-04-2011 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Admin
09-04-2011 6:40 AM


Re: Scrap It
Scrap it, Admin. Obviously you're not budging. I've presented what I want promoted. It's just another example of secularist evos counterparts getting what they want promoted or rejected and mine being censored.

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Admin, posted 09-04-2011 6:40 AM Admin has seen this message

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022