Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 4:52 AM
20 online now:
(20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Author Topic:   General discussion of moderation procedures
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 304 (209679)
05-19-2005 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Faith
05-19-2005 12:49 PM


Trying to explain the separation
Let me see if I can explain the thinking that is going on by using an example.

Consider the Biblical tale of the Flood.

In the science based forum where the flood has been discussed, one requirement is that assertions MUST be backed up with external evidence. We've had interminable discussions that revolve around just that point.

The key though is that there must be external supporting objective evidence and it must remain constant and acroos multiple fields of inquiry.

Nowhere though, in those discussions does the question of "What does the story mean" or "What is the significance of the story?" arise.

Those are important and relevant questions but they are also qustions that cannot be answered through the scientific method. They would be great topics for the Bible Study forum.

The same is true of either Creationism or ID. Both can be interesting subjects to discuss, but until they develop a methodology and actual theory, one that can be tested objectively and refuted, they will never be Science. To be Science they would first need to begin with an acknowledgement that "If the evidence shows the premise is false, then I will discard this assumption and follow the evidence.

How many Creationists are going to be willing to say that if the evidence does not support a God created world I will joyfully discard the concept of a God created world?

To ever move them into the realm of Science, those are the requirements.


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 12:49 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 8:29 PM AdminJar has responded

Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3884
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 287 of 304 (209711)
05-19-2005 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Buzsaw
05-19-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Too strict a division here I think
Buzsaw writes:

Unfortunately, any kind of science forum in which secularist counterparts cannot control the agenda may be a tough proposition here.

Science is secular. Its purpose is neither to confirm nor deny Gods existence. Invoking "God did it" does not apply in science, unless perhaps you can drag God out of the supernatural into the natural.

In the "Science Forums" area, the "Intelligent Design" forum is to discuss the scientific merits of ID. Perhaps the "Intelligent Design" forum would better be termed "Intelligent Design - Is It Science?".

If you wish to debate the theological merits of ID, independent of scientific consideration, then the topic (as previously suggested) belongs in the "Faith and Belief" forum.

Per suggestions of creating other forums:

We could have just one forum - "Evolution vs. Creationism". Indeed, that is the "super-forum" designation that covers it all. From there, things have been broken down into sub-forums (eg. "Science Forums"), which in turn have been broken down into the individual ("sub-sub") forums (eg. "Biological Evolution"). The "sub-sub" forums in turn are broken down into other forums, designated "topics".

Now, we could always have more "sub-forums", and/or more "sub-sub-forums". We could have a "Theological Considerations of Intelligent Design" forum. Heck, we could even have a "For Buzsaw to say anything he wants to" forum. The trick is to find the best balance between splitting and lumping in the scheme of topic organization. But the default needs to be "lumping", unless it can be determined that there is a good reason for a split. As I see it, "Theological Considerations of Intelligent Design" can nicely fit in the "Faith and Belief" forum.

Adminnemooseus (running in the babble mode?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2005 12:33 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2005 3:54 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 8:59 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 304 (209724)
05-19-2005 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Adminnemooseus
05-19-2005 3:05 PM


Re: Too strict a division here I think
Science is secular. Its purpose is neither to confirm nor deny Gods existence. Invoking "God did it" does not apply in science, unless perhaps you can drag God out of the supernatural into the natural.

Science, being the study of the uiverse and what exists in it, this view of science is narrow minded, that it must be secular. I have shown evidence that the basic laws of energy science can include the supenatural. I and others have produced sound logical reasons that BB science leaves many questions unanswered, some, no less significant than questions about intelligen design. We have debated sound reasons to believe there's too much complexity in DNA and other observed stuff for RM and NS, et al. I'm not saying you need to believe all this, but you're saying we must debate on what you people call your evidence while you're free to ignore ours. With no debate allowed on these matters, EvC is half cocked imo, and essentially you have no debate.

Heck, we could even have a "For Buzsaw to say anything he wants to" forum.

Cool! Then I could be like Jar, free to post unsubstantiated stuff with impunity. ;)


The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-19-2005 3:05 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 8:45 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 289 of 304 (209782)
05-19-2005 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by AdminJar
05-19-2005 1:07 PM


Re: Trying to explain the separation
I understand the separation but it won't work for our side. To be specific and practical about it, apparently you are objecting to my including the term "science" in my proposed title? Or the whole idea of our discussing anything scientific whatever because of the preconception that "faith" and "science" are mutually exclusive?

If it's mostly just the use of the term "science" that is the hang-up, other possibilities that might work are Theology of Creationism, or Theological Creationism, or even Biblical Creationism. In fact I like the last one, but any of these should remove the topics from the Science section and yet leave us free to appeal to scientific concepts as they come up.

But if you don't want us to be allowed to do that no way nohow, I don't see a solution to this because it's exactly what we need to do.

The same is true of either Creationism or ID. Both can be interesting subjects to discuss, but until they develop a methodology and actual theory, one that can be tested objectively and refuted, they will never be Science. To be Science they would first need to begin with an acknowledgement that "If the evidence shows the premise is false, then I will discard this assumption and follow the evidence.

How many Creationists are going to be willing to say that if the evidence does not support a God created world I will joyfully discard the concept of a God created world?

I don't want to make a big issue of it because we are trying to live with it and work around it, but I do have to say that this precondition for scientific qualification is unfair and since it's the reason you can't meet our objectives I'll try again to state some of the objections to it.

There is nothing anti-scientific about a Biblical worldview, in fact quite the opposite, just speaking for myself alone. We start from the inviolable Biblical premise, we start from the position that Biblical revelation is a KNOWN, and that everything we observe must be explained within its terms.

Scientific investigations based on that inviolable premise are no less subject to objective testing and refutation than any other.

For instance, we KNOW a worldwide Flood occurred, but we may have all kinds of hypotheses about how it occurred, how it affected the material world and what kind of evidence we may expect to find for it, all of which are subject to empirical testing and refutation without the premise being challenged.

What happens here, however, is that if a specific hypothesis about how it happened appears to be refuted (sometimes it does only APPEAR to be), this usually entails an unwarranted leap to the conclusion that the whole Biblical premise is refuted, which is not the case.

There is nothing inherently unscientific about starting from a solid premise, and there is nothing that is now actually KNOWN to science as FACT that refutes Biblical principles.

Empirical science owes a lot to Christianity as a matter of fact, solidly BIBLICAL Christianity, not liberal compromised Christianity. It would be nice to have a forum for discussing this sort of thing too without always being overridden by secularist assumptions. I'd expect to muster the evidence of course, but I've mustered a lot of evidence here only to have it illegitimately swallowed up in the preconceptions of the other side.

BUT OK, I don't want to get back into that old complaint, and as I said I don't want to make a huge deal out of the whole notion of what science is, since really it's the center of the whole controversy here and I can't expect the evo side to capitulate on it. BUT I'd like to think that SOME accommodation could be made to our different view point for the sake of fostering a GENUINE balance and fairness in the signature debate at EvC.

If nothing will work from your position then I guess we'll just stay as is and continue to work within the rules as well as we can, but just as a practical matter, if it would help to remove the term "science" from the title I'd propose some possibilities. Percy said he's not happy with the Religion/Social Issues section and I'd tentatively propose three forums for it, hoping to meet Biblical Creationist objectives without violating the Science preconditions if possible: Biblical Creationism, Theological ID and Theology of History.

Again, the idea is to accommodate the objective I've stated of removing these categories from the Science section while leaving us free to appeal to scientific concepts as they come up. And again, if there's no way this is permissible then we're at an impasse and there is no solution except going on as usual.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by AdminJar, posted 05-19-2005 1:07 PM AdminJar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by AdminJar, posted 05-19-2005 8:53 PM Faith has responded
 Message 292 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 8:53 PM Faith has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 304 (209786)
05-19-2005 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Buzsaw
05-19-2005 3:54 PM


I'm not saying you need to believe all this, but you're saying we must debate on what you people call your evidence while you're free to ignore ours.

That's absolutely false.

Creationists and evolutionists are on exactly the same footing, around here - neither side is allowed to appeal to the supernatural in their models. Both sides must argue from the physical evidence, not from holy texts or scriptures.

Both sides have the same restrictions. Where's the unfairness?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Buzsaw, posted 05-19-2005 3:54 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by AdminSylas, posted 05-19-2005 8:58 PM crashfrog has responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 291 of 304 (209790)
05-19-2005 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
05-19-2005 8:29 PM


A classic example of why Creationism and ID is not considered Science.
One more try. Your post is exactly why ID and Creationism are unlikely to ever become Science or Scientific.

You say:

We start from the inviolable Biblical premise, we start from the position that Biblical revelation is a KNOWN, and that everything we observe must be explained within its terms.

That is the failing. When you have already determined the conclusion you have moved from the realm of science into something else.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 8:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 9:01 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 304 (209791)
05-19-2005 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Faith
05-19-2005 8:29 PM


Scientific investigations based on that inviolable premise are no less subject to objective testing and refutation than any other.

Er, but no, they're not. Your own post makes that plain, when you continue:

For instance, we KNOW a worldwide Flood occurred

Because you make that claim based on your inviolable belief in the Bible, you've asserted a scientific question - "did the Flood occur as described in the Bible?" - that you've specifically disallowed investigation or refutation of.

Your so-called "Biblical science" ceases to be science the second that you set certain positions immune to scientific challenge. There's no legitimate reason that "did the flood happen?" can't be scientifically investigated; your only reason for disallowing the investigation of that question is the possibility (well, let's be honest, likelyhood) of contradiction of established dogma.

That's not science. That can't ever be science, and that's why faith and science can't mix. The result simply isn't science, contrary to your assertions.

BUT I'd like to think that SOME accommodation could be made to our different view point for the sake of fostering a GENUINE balance and fairness in the signature debate at EvC.

What further accomodation needs to be made? We're already on the same equal footing - you can't appeal to the supernatural, neither can we. You have to ground your arguments in testable, verifiable physical evidence, so do we. If you have genuine, verifiable physical evidence, that evidence will be accepted no matter what. (I wish that the same could be said for your side.)

It's perfectly fair and balanced. What you and Buz want are lower standards for the creationists, and I don't see why you should have them just for the sake of some purported "balance." You don't balance the truth with lies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 8:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 9:14 PM crashfrog has responded

AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 304 (209793)
05-19-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by crashfrog
05-19-2005 8:45 PM


crashfrog writes:

Creationists and evolutionists are on exactly the same footing, around here - neither side is allowed to appeal to the supernatural in their models. Both sides must argue from the physical evidence, not from holy texts or scriptures.

Clarification... and this is my perspective rather than being an official word.

In fact, invoking the supernatural in a model is fine in the science forums. Otherwise there'd be nothing to debate.

What distiniguishes the science forums (IMO) is pretty much as stated in your second point. Propose the supernatural by all means, but do it in the light of the empirical evidence.

If the argument in favour of a certain model (be it supernatural or naturalististic) is based on correct reading of the bible, or abstract logic, or moral worth, or philosophical elegance, then it does not belong in the science forums. If a model does nothing to address the particular forms of physical evidence, then take it elsewhere. If the only objection to a model is that you don't like it, or that it isn't logical, or that it would require you to abandon your faith, or that it would give comfort to the GOP; we don't want to know about it in the science forum.

Supernatural is not the same thing as being divorced from physical evidence.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 8:45 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 9:11 PM AdminSylas has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 294 of 304 (209794)
05-19-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by Adminnemooseus
05-19-2005 3:05 PM


Re: Too strict a division here I think
Now, we could always have more "sub-forums", and/or more "sub-sub-forums". We could have a "Theological Considerations of Intelligent Design" forum. Heck, we could even have a "For Buzsaw to say anything he wants to" forum. The trick is to find the best balance between splitting and lumping in the scheme of topic organization. But the default needs to be "lumping", unless it can be determined that there is a good reason for a split. As I see it, "Theological Considerations of Intelligent Design" can nicely fit in the "Faith and Belief" forum.

If this is decided on, then I'd also like you to add one for the non-ID creationists, or YECs, which I think would best be called "Biblical Creationism."

I'm also for having a "Let Buz say anything he wants to" forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-19-2005 3:05 PM Adminnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 9:11 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 295 of 304 (209797)
05-19-2005 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by AdminJar
05-19-2005 8:53 PM


Re: A classic example of why Creationism and ID is not considered Science.
You either want to accommodate our views at least to some minimal extent or you don't. If you don't, that's that. End of subject.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by AdminJar, posted 05-19-2005 8:53 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by AdminSylas, posted 05-19-2005 9:14 PM Faith has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 304 (209803)
05-19-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by AdminSylas
05-19-2005 8:58 PM


What distiniguishes the science forums (IMO) is pretty much as stated in your second point. Propose the supernatural by all means, but do it in the light of the empirical evidence.

We clearly mean two very different things when we say "supernatural."

Supernatural is not the same thing as being divorced from physical evidence.

See, those are exactly the same thing to me. If something can be substantiated and detected by natural, physical evidence, then it must be, by definition, natural.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by AdminSylas, posted 05-19-2005 8:58 PM AdminSylas has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Sylas, posted 05-19-2005 9:23 PM crashfrog has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 304 (209804)
05-19-2005 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
05-19-2005 8:59 PM


I'm also for having a "Let Buz say anything he wants to" forum.

Yup, lower standards for the creationists. Why, exactly?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 8:59 PM Faith has not yet responded

AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 304 (209806)
05-19-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by Faith
05-19-2005 9:01 PM


Re: A classic example of why Creationism and ID is not considered Science.
"Accomodate a view"? You are welcome to your views. If you take it as axiomatic that, for example, the Earth was innundated by a global flood within human history, that is your prerogative by all means.

If you want to debate your views with those who have different views, that's fine too; but that will be pointless unless you recpognize that others have different axioms, and that you cannot simply presume your axioms as a foundation for the debate. There needs to be some kind of actual argument or defence which does not merely appeal to your personal axioms.

We have some "faith and belief" forums, where you can discuss the proper foundations for your faith and the theological basis for strict historical literalism, and so on. We also have some "science" forums, where you can consider what physical evidence there is for or against a particular view point.

Cheers -- Sylas


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 9:01 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Faith, posted 05-19-2005 9:18 PM AdminSylas has not yet responded

Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 299 of 304 (209807)
05-19-2005 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by crashfrog
05-19-2005 8:53 PM


Scientific investigations based on that inviolable premise are no less subject to objective testing and refutation than any other.
=====
Er, but no, they're not. Your own post makes that plain, when you continue:
=====
For instance, we KNOW a worldwide Flood occurred
=====
Because you make that claim based on your inviolable belief in the Bible, you've asserted a scientific question - "did the Flood occur as described in the Bible?" - that you've specifically disallowed investigation or refutation of.

You are as usual murdering logic and missing the point I'm making. I've only disallowed investigation of the BIBLICAL PREMISE, not any hypothesis based on it, and only disallowed it in the specific new forums we are trying to design, to get away from its hegemony everywhere else. If this is not possible then end of controversy as I've said, back to EvC business as usual.

Your so-called "Biblical science"

Ya know, I didn't even use that term but there you are putting quotes around it as if I did. Couldn't you be a little more careful about what you impute to me? I mean, like READ WHAT I WROTE for a change.

ceases to be science the second that you set certain positions immune to scientific challenge.

Once again, there is nothing inherently unscientific about starting from a stated inviolable premise. You can violate this premise all you want elsewhere, as is done every day here on 99% of the forums anyway, but I'd like one Bash-Free Zone to exist if possible.

And AGAIN, if nobody can see their way clear to accommodating to this, I don't see why we are having this discussion at all, because it's the ONLY way to solve the problems Buz and I experience here.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 8:53 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by crashfrog, posted 05-19-2005 9:25 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 31821
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 300 of 304 (209810)
05-19-2005 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by AdminSylas
05-19-2005 9:14 PM


Re: A classic example of why Creationism and ID is not considered Science.
We have some "faith and belief" forums, where you can discuss the proper foundations for your faith and the theological basis for strict historical literalism, and so on. We also have some "science" forums, where you can consider what physical evidence there is for or against a particular view point.

The point has been made ad nauseum already. And my answer is the same. YOU make the split, I don't, Buz doesn't. I don't mind if you want to relegate Creationist discussions to the Religion section, but I want to be able to INCLUDE considerations for "what physical evidence there is for or against a particular view point" because that's how we think about these things, as all of a piece, whether you do or not.

This message has been edited by Faith, 05-19-2005 09:19 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by AdminSylas, posted 05-19-2005 9:14 PM AdminSylas has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
16171819
20
21Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019