Difference between religion and science fora

I don't agree that the science standards here are truly rigorous or even rational, as a matter of fact, or at least they aren't consistently so. I agree with Randman that the criteria are all over the place and very inconsistently applied. I'm merely going along with the prevailing view. When in Rome.

That's a few good point -I have no problem with:

quote:

---

When the water left the ground at 18,000mph it did not turn to steam because God prevented it

---

or

quote:

---

When the water left the ground at 18,000mph it did not turn to steam due to some mechanism I'm not quite sure of. At the moment I honestly cannot suggest what that maybe. I will have to take it on faith that this did occur.

---

But I do have a problem with

quote:

---

When the water left the ground at 18,000mph it did not turn to steam because science is wrong or not conducted in the proper manner.

---

Every single person here who is employed in, or otherwise connected with, one or more fields in the sciences absolutely disagrees with you.The only people that do agree with you are your fellow Christian jihadists who have no science experience whatsoever.Why do you suppose that is the case?

But Faith that's an out and out lie - you don't go along with the prevailing view. I think what people tend to forget is this site (and maybe I've got this wrong) is a place where creationists can put forward their views using the accepted methods, methodologies and practices of science as it stands today. Even over at AIG and places they claim this is what they are doing. You are clearly NOT doing this.You CANNOT make statements such as:

quote:

---

Sorry, I like the word "prove" and it's quite accurate for many things. Certainly we can prove things. We prove them all the time. Guess the distance from where you are sitting to a spot opposite you. We can prove if you are right or wrong by measuring it. That's proof, not mere plausibility. Various scientists in history proved many things, how the blood circulates, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, the cause of sickness by "germs" and how to protect ourselves from them, that water doesn't get hotter after it reaches the boiling point, and lots of stuff like that.

---

and not accept that you want to practice and discuss pseduo-science rather than actual science. This has nothing at all to do with TOE,creationism or anything at all. It's far more basic - you refuse to accept or discuss science as it is actually conducted.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 07:40 AM

I'm using ordinary everyday language which is quite understandable and a lot clearer. In any case when I said I go along with the prevailing view I meant I put up with the bannings and whatever without protesting any more, not that I try to meet the standards.

quote:

---

I'm using ordinary everyday language which is quite understandable and a lot clearer.

---

but not to the people here - this is a self-selective group who wants to discuss the sciences - we use the correct terminology.Moreover it's plain misleading. Fact,theory,law,proof are have different meanings to how they are used in everyday langauge - to use them in that way when trying to discuss science when you know that is not how they are used is Disingenuous in the truest sense of the word (giving a false appearance of frankness).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 08:03 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 08:04 AM

You aren't that dumb. You can figure out what I'm saying if you are willing to, could ask for clarification if you don't. Presumably you also speak ordinary everyday English. I object to the term "evolution" to describe what is merely the same thing as the ages-old breeding or artificial selection of varieties of a species, or breeds, or the natural selection version of the same thing. It never used to be used in the sense it is now used to describe this, and to use it that way is really question-begging as it obscures the very terms of the dispute creationists have with evolution. Nevertheless I do frequently use the term in its currently accepted sense, but only thickly hedged with qualifiers as I consider it a tendentious and confusing misnomer.

No forgot evolution - we are talking a far far more basic problem. You refuse to discuss science as it is understood and performed.I don't want "clarification" - I just want you to use the terminology that is actually used.You do realise that AIG or any of the other apologtic groups would not support your current position?

quote:

---

You can figure out what I'm saying if you are willing to

---

a load of bollocks normally (in regard to the sciences) but that's neither here or there.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 08:20 AM

Are nonscientists welcome here or not? Do you have the good will to help us with terminological problems or not? Or is this simply a matter of paying one's dues for the *right* to have an opinion here? I have no desire to go onto the science fora because of the attitudes to creationists, but I do have an interest in discussing scientific questions from a nonscientist/layman's point of view.It isn't simply a refusal on my part to use the terminology, it's partly a concern to say exactly what I mean and not get caught up in the tendentiousness of technical language that obscure or compromise what I'm trying to say, and it's also that this requirement that a nonscientist learn the terms, such as by reading a geology text, doesn't do it. I've read quite a bit of basic geology online. It doesn't help very much in dealing with what I'm actually trying to say, though where it does I make use of it. In other words, I already know what I'm trying to say and while it would be good to put it in the most correct terms, they don't come readily to hand, and I would think for my very basic purposes that basic English should suffice. I've also read basic genetics, how DNA works, both online and in an introductory level book I have.I grasp what I grasp. I understand enough to know what I'm trying to say. I have basically two main ideas -- about how natural limits to genetic variation are built into the genome for each species, and how the geologlical strata defy explanation in terms of long accumulation. If I have the terminology wrong in some *crucial* (as opposed to nitpicking insignificant or irrelevant) way, it would be kind of you to help me translate what I'm trying to say into the proper language, which I have to believe you are capable of doing.However, I don't think terminology is the problem. I think it's very clear what I'm saying, and you simply have all the usual evolutionist objections to it.This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 09:24 AM

You keep trying to bring this back to specific areas - that's not the problem, your problem is at the most basic level.The problem is that many common words have a different meaning ENTIRELY from those in science.

quote:

---

Are nonscientists welcome here or not? Do you have the good will to help us with terminological problems or not?

---

That's a dodge and you know it. But what's suppose to happen when the non-scientist is told by those who have experience in the area "no we don't use the word proof" and the person says "well I do, so I'm going to use it when discussing science". How can we help you when you refuse to accept at the most basic level that you have got it wrong? That's nothing to do with evolution or geogology, nothing at all.let's try something.Define what you think FACT means in everyday use and it's use in science (don't google - just try and define them).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:28 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:28 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:29 AM

What is the *correct* term that is used instead of "proof*, then, when there is far more than a mere speculative plausibility in support of a given scientific finding? People keep telling me all there IS is plausibility, but as a matter of fact the sense in which the geo time table or the ToE are mere plausibilities is far more tenuous than the sense in which laboratory science produces plausibilities, so to insist on the term merely obscures the point I'm trying to make, which point concerns the utter untestability and unfalsifiability of the ToE etc while yet affirming that much genuine falsifiable testable science goes on in lab and field every day. Come on. Is this a terminological problem REALLY?

Can I be blunt? I don't think your understanding is yet at a stage where's it is worth having a conversation about it.So what what do you think FACT means in everyday use and science?This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:33 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:42 AM

---

everything you think you know baby is wrong and everything you think you had baby is gone. everything you think you know baby is wrong. its all over but the crying fade to black Im sick of trying took too much and now Im done Garbage - It's All Over But The Crying

I asked a reasonable question and if you are going to treat me this way the conversation is over. I'm not jumping through hoops for you.I thought such personal remarks were out of line here. Depends on who says them to whom, doesn't it?This message has been edited by Faith, 08-01-2005 10:53 AM

Well to be more blunt - I think we are at a stage where the vast majority of the people you encounter here think that you don't have anything useful at all to say on any topic connected with science. I think we have reached the point where you actually have to demonstrate to people that you understand what science is, before people will even consider the fact that you have any sensible views on any given scientific issue.The only person I can remember who was worse was Ray Martiniz (Willowtree) and he was 100% rug-chewing mad. Some would say that true creation had a similar problem to yours but you seems to be many levels below him.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 09:56 AM

FaithYou have been told many, many times that one of the hallmarks of science is Tentativity. To now pretend that you do not know that says one of two things.Either you are incapable of learning or you are simply refusing to acknowledge what you have been told.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion