Who's Held To Higher Standards At EvC?

quote:

---

Well can you suggest any biblical passages that you feel are directly relevant to the question of Id?

---

Quite a few I suppose.Genesis 1 - 2
Isaiah 42:5
Hebrews 11:3
Revelations 4:11These, of course, are but a tiny, tiny sampling of passages that claim intelligent design. I suppose undermining the trustworthiness of ALL OF THEM will be quite a task for the scientists on this forum. Please keep the creationists here informed of your progress.

quote:

---

Let us say, hypothetically, that there is no God, then, because there is a claim that there is a God in the Bible, the claims of the Bible become relevent to the discussion. The claims must be disproven by science for the no God claim to be true.

---

No, it is up to the person making the positive claim to support their claim with positive evidence. The Bible and christianity are making a positive claim, that God exists. As of this hour, no positive, objective evidence supports the existence of God. That is why the existence of God is taken on faith and personal revelation.

Absolutely not. There is no demand on creationists to prove God scientifically, therefore you cannot argue that they have any added burden on that score. Nor is there any command to discuss creation only within science - you may note that there is, for instance, a "Faith and Belief" forum.Moreover many creationist claims do fall within the view of science. Common descent, for instance is denied by most creationists. Yet that is firmly within the domain of science.Indeed, if creationists arguments rely on the assumption of a God then they place themselves at a disadvantage since it is a controversial and unprovable assumption. They can't eexpect atheists and agnostics to find such an argument convincing - nor anyone who disagrees with them on the nature of God so far as it is relevant. In that case they aren't being held to a higher standard - they've run foul of an entirely normal feature of debate that applies to both sides. If the creationists need to be exempted from that then they are being held to an abnormally low standard.

The positive evidence is in the historical accuracy and trustworthiness of the Bible. And I have already shown that it is relevant to add it into evidence.So, we have all of this positive evidence. Now you have to show it's wrong. And you can't just throw out the whole Bible. That wouldn't be very scientific. You need to test and examine the factual nature of each passage.

You have said what I wanted to - only clearer. I said to Dan that we are required to give science so we can be turned down by them. We're certainly on the same wavelength, because I made that comment to Dan before reading your other posts also. Lol.So it's interesting that there are all these buttons we must press before we hit the target they want us to hit. For example;First get the crationist to claim A - so we can lead him to b then c.A (get him to argue science) ---> B (show him that his science isn't good enough) - Or C (if he shows good science, they can lead him to the position D (that God isn't in science.Do they subconsciously do this without realizing it?This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-20-2004 12:36 PM

quote:

---

Absolutely not. There is no demand on creationists to prove God scientifically, therefore you cannot argue that they have any added burden on that score. Nor is there any command to discuss creation only within science - you may note that there is, for instance, a "Faith and Belief" forum.

---

I'm sorry, but the posts clearly indicate this. Regardless, if this is Evolution vs Creation, it is only fair to let both sides include what they feel is relevent to the debate, otherwise, the other side is hijacking the process. If you say science is relevent, fine, we will do our best. You think we haven't made a good scientific case. Fine. Fair enough. You have had your fun, now allow us to introduce what we feel is relevent to the debate. If you were to spend but a little time in the spiritual realm and explain why we are wrong there like you show that we are wrong in science, why, you would win the whole debate. Give it a try. IT IS FAIR!!!

No, I'm afraid Mike's outright lying. In fact the prophecies discussed have generally turned out to be failures.

quote:

---

Do they subconsciously do this without realizing it?

---

Generally speaking, with the exception of some no doubt, I think it subconcious. And the reason I do is because I am fairly convinced that they are enslaved by science in such a way that it has become a god to them; a very, very narrow god. And, I don't think that god will let them think outside its box. It is the nature of enslavement to the natural.This message has been edited by Maestro232, 12-20-2004 12:45 PM

quote:

---

No, I'm afraid Mike's outright lying. In fact the prophecies discussed have generally turned out to be failures.

---

Scientifically or spiritually?If we are not allowed to use spirituality to reject your science, then you should not be allowed to use science to reject our spirituality. Else we are held to a higher standard. (Which is the topic).

Mike,

quote:

---

u seem to be clever enough to not take mike's bait concerning prophecy - which is more than I can say for that big fishy I caught that begins with "H".

---

Careful how you describe Hangdawg. Isn't he a moderator or something?We've all been on the Mikey-go-round before. To compensate for your attention-starvation elsewhere, you blurt out something saying that atheists are "nihilistic" or that nobody's "stupid" enough to be an atheist, and then you giggle when people have the nerve to be insulted. Ho hum. You (or one of your other noms de plume) fulminate on a Dawkins book you've never read, then you abandon that discussion when people point out what the book actually said. Or you claim that you've already proved that God exists through some lame sophistry or linking to a wacko prophecy website. Now you're claiming that creationists don't get a fair shake here at EvC. Oh. Kay.We notice you, Mike, we really do. We don't take you seriously, but you're a real hoot. Rave on.regards,
Esteban Hambre

The posts clearly indicate nothing of the sort.Again you are attempting to demand an unfair advantage by demanding that your personal beleifs be put on the same level as well-established science. In fact it is giving creationists an advantage to even consider their opinions to be on the same level as anybody elses - in my personal experience creationists have a marked habit of jumping to obviously wrong conclusions.

If a prophecy can be judged as a success based on historical events matching the preduction then it can equally be a failure if the historical events fail to match the prediction. That is real fairness.

Which, of course, would only be the case when you try to present your beliefs as objective fact. In which case yes, they are held up to all sorts of daunting standards. No we don't. We say "what you are doing is not science". There's a difference.

DPThis message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 12-20-2004 12:55 PM

quote:

---

Again you are attempting to demand an unfair advantage by demanding that your personal beleifs be put on the same level as well-established science.

---

No. I demanded that accurate historical documents and trustworthy prophets be put on the same level as well-established science. Will we be so arrogant here as to deny the validity of history?

quote:

---

...in my personal experience creationists have a marked habit of jumping to obviously wrong conclusions.

---

It's a good thing for me you don't trust personal experience then.