Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 2:49 PM
133 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, CosmicChimp, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, xongsmith (7 members, 126 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,459 Year: 3,496/19,786 Month: 491/1,087 Week: 81/212 Day: 11/31 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
171819Next
Author Topic:   Faith's Participation in EvC
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 226 of 285 (354853)
10-06-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by jar
10-06-2006 4:23 PM


If they believe that something like the Biblical Flood is FACT then they cannot do science.

This being the inviolable premise of EvC, which Biblical creationists of course dispute, there is no debate possible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by jar, posted 10-06-2006 4:23 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by jar, posted 10-06-2006 4:55 PM Faith has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 227 of 285 (354854)
10-06-2006 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Faith
10-06-2006 4:51 PM


Debate is always possible. What is impossible is for Biblical Creationists to ever do science related to things like the Flood or Age of the Universe or Evolution or Cosmology.

To do science you MUST be willing to abandon positions when the evidence demands.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 4:51 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 5:03 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 229 by Ben!, posted 10-06-2006 5:13 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 228 of 285 (354856)
10-06-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by jar
10-06-2006 4:55 PM


To do science you MUST be willing to abandon positions when the evidence demands.

I'll say this one more time.

The Bible IS evidence. And it is evidence of a sort that requires all other pretenders to evidence -- other positions -- to yield. The evidence that is against the Bible is merely misinterpreted by fallible human beings, and we consider it our job to try to discover how that is so. Your flat dogmatic pronouncements that what Biblical creationists do is not science, as if you have evidence against us that is infallible and unchallengeable, are simply silly, far from anything scientific right there.

Look, this particular discussion is endless. Why bother any more. Give it up.

The only way debate can happen here is about the specific facts involved, not the premises. (And even then I'm afraid it's only too obvious to some of us that the debate is skewed there too).

However. Onward and upward and all that. There's no resolving this. I'm avoiding posting on science threads for the indefinite future and if that helps, great.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by jar, posted 10-06-2006 4:55 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Ben!
Member (Idle past 1695 days)
Posts: 1154
From: San Diego, CA
Joined: 10-14-2004


Message 229 of 285 (354857)
10-06-2006 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by jar
10-06-2006 4:55 PM


This is frightening that we still can't resolve this simple, basic issue:

jar writes:

To do science you MUST be willing to abandon positions when the evidence demands.

Absolutely. 100% true.

Creationists can't do science because they will never revise or abandon certain things. That's fine.

Creationists can do other types of empirical investigation besides science to describe the in-depth natural history of the world. Given the history of success of producing useful theories in science vs. other methodoligies, it's UNLIKELY that creationists can come up with better theories than science. But, since creationists CANNOT use science to come up with theories, then that's what creationists are left with.

Science is revisionist. Creationism has many "fixed points", many conclusions that are fixed and not open to revision. They can't do science. Creationists, please, just abandon the claim that you can do science. It doesn't mean you're wrong, it just means that you're at a large disadvantage when it comes to producing sensical theories of the natural world.

Faith (or other creationists), can this be agreed on and finally accepted? It seems to be such a simple point...

(P.S. I'm replying to Jar's message, but I hope it's clear I'm addressing creationists. And not 'revisionist creationists', like jar ).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by jar, posted 10-06-2006 4:55 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 6:07 PM Ben! has not yet responded
 Message 235 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 6:09 PM Ben! has not yet responded

    
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 230 of 285 (354859)
10-06-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by iano
10-06-2006 3:58 PM


Iano writes:

Creationists are entitled to believe the flood happened and then go about making an empirical case for it just like any scientist must. They are allowed to compete with alernative views based on the evidence.

Unfortunately they are unable to make a scientific case because there is no empirical evidence to support their claims.

It's really as simple as that.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 3:58 PM iano has not yet responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 231 of 285 (354860)
10-06-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by iano
10-06-2006 4:02 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
Iano writes:

Is Faith permitted to state her belief that the flood happened in fact and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way?

Faith can state her HYPOTHESIS that the flood MAY have happened and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 4:02 PM iano has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Brad McFall, posted 10-06-2006 5:36 PM RickJB has responded
 Message 249 by iano, posted 10-06-2006 8:45 PM RickJB has responded

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 3106 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 232 of 285 (354861)
10-06-2006 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by RickJB
10-06-2006 5:20 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
Listen RickJB,
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html
I mean listen to NPR science Friday. Dawkins was just on with Ira and callers but catch the rythm and timbre that is NOT equivalent,not even as equivalent as your last two posts in this thread. This is supposed to be about FAITH the evc personality yes? And so... you posted this one.

On NPR Ira had dreged up a quote from Collins who said to paraphrase "atheists have to have more faith"(than creationists) but also suggested the secular praxis IS NOT the place of what we see in our world. Ira then asked Richard to respond. Richard (in a way that I my self even can agree) said that "faith" is not something to be applied to non-religious things or some such (yeah, I think what Collins said of that was silly at best) but Dawkins DID NOT respond to the allegation that secular science environment DOES NOT reflect what natural existence is outside in our environs. By the time IRA had redirected the question BACK to Richard on this (now as guised as "totalitarianism") a caller had already expressed common sympathy with Richard Dawkins but Dr. D referred to "the fact" of evolution rather than the social context. As far as I understand this "fact" is no other than Carter's "evidence" which in 1959 was really only the difference in biology of the taxonmist and the physiologist.

Now once you suggest that Faith here on EVC CAN

quote:
state her HYPOTHESIS that the flood MAY have happened and then go about assembling the evidence in a scientific way.
you seem to me at least to be obviating Faith from presenting creation in the same way Richard Dawkins just did "the fact of evolution" on NPR. Are you not suggesting that she can not state the "fact of creation" in the same way that Richard did the "fact of evolution." It seems to me to be the cardinal value added nature of EVC is that we can have both sides drawn out equally here where as on LIVE MEDIA we tend NOT TO GET (recieve)THIS. When you suggest that she can state a hypothesis AND THEn...are you saying she can not state a"fact" and theN assemble??????

Maybe I misunderstood why you were posting in this thread. I dont konw for sure.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by RickJB, posted 10-06-2006 5:20 PM RickJB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by RickJB, posted 10-06-2006 6:34 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12578
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 233 of 285 (354864)
10-06-2006 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Faith
10-06-2006 4:35 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
Faith writes:

That is a ridiculous and obvious point, Percy, to which the obvious answer is that the Bible is not regarded by Biblical creationists as just a book, which I believe is how I answered, and if you will not accept Biblical creationist premises -- not for yourself or for EvC but as a simple statement of our position -- there is nothing more that can be said.

This is another good example of why you experience so many problems here. Too many times the discussion comes down to your assertion that nothing more can be said. You can't repeatedly draw people into the middle of detailed discussions and then suddenly throw up your hands and quit, not without drawing moderator attention.

As everyone knows, there is always plenty that can be said. I'm not sure why you think it is reasonable to require that others "accept Biblical creationist premises" without your side having to make any effort at persuasion or argument. This is a debate site. The expectation is that there will be evidence and argumentation from each side for their respective positions. If you're not willing to discuss and defend your position, then you shouldn't be participating in a debate site. This isn't a creationist issue, it's just what a discussion is: give and take, back and forth and all that.

1) I don't regard that as a well-argued rebuttal (Faith is referring to Message 70 in Faith Science - Logically Indefensible) to say the least, but merely your statement of position which no creationist is allowed to disagree with, or YOUR statement of belief; and...

No, Faith, it is not a statement of belief, and of course disagreement is permitted. What isn't permitted is exactly what you're doing here, yet another dismissal from you without addressing anything of substance while once again declaring your point of view.

2) I answered it, I did not merely give a statement of belief. It was to make a point.

Faith, Faith, please, do not be irrational. I am spending much time with you, and this descent into denial is wasting my time and yours. You did not answer anything in my post, and you did give just a statement of belief. Here's the entirety of your reply:

Faith in Message 71 of Thread Faith Science etc... writes:

I believe the flood is evident in the geo column and that will eventually be shown empirically.

The Bible is God's word, it is not "some book." Your not believing that makes no difference to whether or not its statements are facts. That was the point of my post.

End of discussion.

That reply is an almost perfect example of the problem. This is a discussion board, not a "Faith Declares the Truth" board. If you can't discuss constructively then I would prefer that you not participate here. This has nothing to with creationist beliefs, it has to do with uniformly enforcing the Forum Guidelines that require everyone to discuss constructively. If you choose to continue stonewalling and declaring instead of discussing then that is your choice. All I'm doing is pursuing my goal of making EvC Forum a premiere site for discussion of the creation/evolution controversy.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 4:35 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 6:15 PM Admin has not yet responded

    
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 234 of 285 (354870)
10-06-2006 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Ben!
10-06-2006 5:13 PM


I'm sorry Ben, no, it can't be accepted, sorry.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Ben!, posted 10-06-2006 5:13 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 285 (354871)
10-06-2006 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Ben!
10-06-2006 5:13 PM


The impasse is truly unbridgeable. The frustration is equal on both sides. I don't understand why my point can't be accommodated to and you don't understand why yours can't. I keep trying to say this, it's unresolvable. All that can be done is recognize that the other side has the view they have and argue the particulars, ignoring the premises. I can do that much, but apparently evos can't, they have to keep insisting their premises are right, are just what science IS.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Ben!, posted 10-06-2006 5:13 PM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Faith
Inactive Member


Message 236 of 285 (354872)
10-06-2006 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Admin
10-06-2006 5:51 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
As everyone knows, there is always plenty that can be said. I'm not sure why you think it is reasonable to require that others "accept Biblical creationist premises" without your side having to make any effort at persuasion or argument.

Well, we've DONE that for heaven's sake. I've done it a LOT. In fact I've done it in this discussion.

And please don't misstate it. YOU don't have to accept them, you merely have to realize that you are dealing with debate opponents who will not compromise them. Which I guess means please stop berating and browbeating us for something we will not give up.

The Bible comes up in CONTEXT of certain challenges Percy, there are dozens of threads where it never comes up. Don't act as if it's my only way of posting. When the Biblical premise is challenged I have no choice but to answer it. Forget the Biblical premise and focus on the geological and other scientific issues involved and the debate can proceed.

In other words, tell the evos to stop challenging the Biblical premise, rather than telling me to stop asserting it.

I'm sorry to be a drain on your time. I'm quite willing to be suspended if that's what you want.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Admin, posted 10-06-2006 5:51 PM Admin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by NosyNed, posted 10-06-2006 6:36 PM Faith has responded
 Message 239 by Quetzal, posted 10-06-2006 7:00 PM Faith has responded

  
RickJB
Member (Idle past 3064 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 237 of 285 (354876)
10-06-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Brad McFall
10-06-2006 5:36 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
Brad writes:

Are you not suggesting that she can not state the "fact of creation" in the same way that Richard did the "fact of evolution."

Hey Brad,

Dawkins can back his position with empirical evidence (with demonstrable predictive capacity) spread across multiple scientific fields. Faith can't.

In any case, being the cautious spirit that I am, I shy away from using the word "fact" about anything - most especially with regard to my own beliefs!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Brad McFall, posted 10-06-2006 5:36 PM Brad McFall has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by GDR, posted 10-06-2006 7:47 PM RickJB has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8837
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 238 of 285 (354877)
10-06-2006 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
10-06-2006 6:15 PM


geological issues
geological and other scientific issues involved and the debate can proceed.

Why do you think I brought up the geological issues as an example of the kind of problem that I see you as having?

You were corrected, over and over again, on misstatements of fact. You never, that I noticed even commented on the corrections given to you much less acknowledge that you were wrong. You simply continued restating your conclusions that were arrived at based on the faulty, wrong, in error, not real facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 6:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 7:56 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 239 of 285 (354886)
10-06-2006 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Faith
10-06-2006 6:15 PM


Re: Bye Bye All
The Bible comes up in CONTEXT of certain challenges Percy, there are dozens of threads where it never comes up. Don't act as if it's my only way of posting. When the Biblical premise is challenged I have no choice but to answer it. Forget the Biblical premise and focus on the geological and other scientific issues involved and the debate can proceed.

Faith, much as I would hate to see you "disappeared" from EvCForum, this is precisely the problem you face if you wish to continue: the ONLY way this outlook can be sustained in productive discourse is to substantiate the Biblical claims with external referants. In other words, you are free to take the Flood as literally true, but then you MUST find supporting evidence to support it. In science, this is usually done in the form "if...then...". Restating it with your favorite example, if the Flood is true, then we should see evidence in the form X, Y, Z. Then you could look for it in the relevant literature. If you DO see X, Y, and Z, then the Flood is supported. If you see X and Y, but not Z, then maybe the Flood is only weakly supported by the evidence, or perhaps your expectations of what would be found need to be revised. If you don't see X, Y, and Z, then there may be another explanation, but most likely the (lack) of evidence suggests that the Flood may not be the best explanation of what the rocks actually show.

However, in your case, you are almost always in the position of not seeing X, Y, and Z or anything else in the real world. Moreover, you are in the position of having to account for A, B, C, D etc, that simply COULDN'T be the result of a Flood. You have to take all those things into consideration. However, rather than re-evaluating your position, you simply repeat your initial premise. This has been your tactic in all three of the most recent bio threads in which you participated. You make assertions without foundation - pure speculations - ignore any attempts to show you that your assertion may not be valid (including refusal to read articles provided for your benefit and then deny that the articles say what your opponent claims it says), and in the end throw up your hands and refuse to participate further.

This latter has been especially frustrating to me personally. Even after I went way out of my way to actually show where you were right AS WELL as where you were wrong, you never even bothered to comment. Percy is correct: you need to truly re-evaluate your participation in certain threads.

Edited by Quetzal, : clarification


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 6:15 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Faith, posted 10-06-2006 7:54 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4782
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 240 of 285 (354894)
10-06-2006 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by RickJB
10-06-2006 6:34 PM


Is there a double standard?
RickJB writes:

Dawkins can back his position with empirical evidence (with demonstrable predictive capacity) spread across multiple scientific fields. Faith can't.

That's the whole point that Brad was making. Dawkins and other Atheists go beyond science without their positions being questioned. I don't care how accomplished a scientist is. His or her view of first cause is no more valid than Faith's because it has nothing to do with science.

Evolution is scientific, therefore it is agnostic. What is the first cause for evolution? Dawkins and others like him, (of which there are many on this forum) contend all first causes are natural and without metaphysical cause. Although I disagree with Faith on how to read the Bible we and many others are convinced that there is metaphysical design involved, but neither of these positions are scientific.

You and others seem to be able to sell your position as scientific in a way that Faith can't. In my view there is something of a double standard. As I read Brad's post that is the point he is trying to make and I agree with him.


Everybody is entitled to my opinion. :)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by RickJB, posted 10-06-2006 6:34 PM RickJB has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by nwr, posted 10-06-2006 7:57 PM GDR has responded
 Message 253 by Brad McFall, posted 10-06-2006 10:11 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
171819Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019