Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,060 Year: 5,317/9,624 Month: 342/323 Week: 186/160 Day: 3/19 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Question for creationists: Why would you rather believe in a small God?
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 121 of 301 (703135)
07-15-2013 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:23 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
I should have said the PREHISTORIC past. And excuse you because you should have known that's what I meant. Anything past that is within the range of living witnesses is possible to evidence, or even written history up to a point. The prehistoric past is not.
Wrong again!
The prehistoric past is easy to research, no living witnesses needed.
Archaeologists and a score of other -ologists do it all the time, using the same scientific method used by other fields of science.
But you don't have a problem with those other fields because your old tribal myths aren't being contradicted, as is the case with virtually anything involving prehistory. So you have to rationalize your beliefs by inaccurately differentiating "science" (that which you don't agree with) from "real science" (that which you do agree with).
What a crock!

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:23 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 8:38 PM Coyote has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 301 (703136)
07-15-2013 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Coyote
07-15-2013 8:35 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Archaeology deals with human time frames, not prehistoric time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2013 8:35 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2013 8:51 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 130 by Theodoric, posted 07-15-2013 9:10 PM Faith has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 908 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 123 of 301 (703137)
07-15-2013 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
07-15-2013 8:33 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
So let me get this straight: YOU see a very great distinction between MICROevolution and MACROevolution, yet in dealing with EVOLUTION, you don't bother to make clear this distinction and you repeatedly use the word evolution as your word choice to state the science you object to even though there is already a word for that with which you object to which is different from evolution? And you do not see how this is dishonest?
It is absurd that this still needs to be argued after months and years of this debate.
That is the most honest thing you've said in this whole thread... just not for the reason you intended.
For the 4th or 5th time now: will you identify what sciences you Do accept and DO believe are compatible with the YEC worldview?
::abe::
In the current context I've been using "evolution" ONLY to refer to macroevolution which is the contested theory after all.
You DO realize that there is only one theory, right? You either accept evolutionary theory or you don't. In Message 96, you said:
quote:
Evolution, however, is ABOUT THE PAST, it is NOT SCIENCE AS REAL SCIENCE is SCIENCE, the kind of science that can be replicated in the laboratory, that produces things, that builds things and so on.
Well, evolution "builds" influenza vaccines. Not the "theory of MICROevolution, the theory of evolution.
So, since you admitted to accepting the science behind the flu vaccine, you by proxy accept evolution.
Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 8:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 124 of 301 (703138)
07-15-2013 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Rahvin
07-15-2013 8:02 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Of course it's all microevolution, not because a fruit fly didn't become a dog, but because it never became anything other than a fruit fly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Rahvin, posted 07-15-2013 8:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 391 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 125 of 301 (703139)
07-15-2013 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
07-15-2013 7:50 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
There IS no evidence of descent from one Species to another and you have never found any either.
Now that's such a howling falsehood that even many YECs have abandoned it. And when something's too false for creationists, that's false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 7:50 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 8:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 126 of 301 (703140)
07-15-2013 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
07-15-2013 8:38 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Archaeology deals with human time frames, not prehistoric time.
That is a very ignorant statement, and one that is factually incorrect as well.
I don't think I have ever met someone who can be so consistently wrong. As a scientist, I can imagine you might be worthy of study.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 8:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 127 of 301 (703141)
07-15-2013 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Dr Adequate
07-15-2013 8:49 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
There is no evidence of descent from one Species to another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2013 8:49 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-15-2013 9:38 PM Faith has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 908 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 128 of 301 (703142)
07-15-2013 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
07-15-2013 9:40 AM


Re: Science meets Faith
Certainly I disagree with those supposedly "useful conclusions and comparisons" that aren't useful at all, certainly not in biology, and only because somehow they are pressed into service in the oil industry are they used in Geology, though their necessity may be questioned there as well. But that's only a small part of the sciences in question really, 100% disagreement with five or ten percent.
So how does this message jice with your goalpost shifting of now claiming you were talking about "MICROevolution"? Those "useful conclusions and comparisons" in biology use.....EVOLUTION. One theory. You should stop lying.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 9:40 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 9:09 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 301 (703143)
07-15-2013 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by hooah212002
07-15-2013 9:06 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
As I said, in describing "evolution" as unscientific I was using the word to mean "macroevolution," the theory of evolution from Species to Species, since microevolution is normal genetic variation accepted by all but macroevolution is pure unproven conjecture.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 9:06 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 9:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9341
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 130 of 301 (703144)
07-15-2013 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Faith
07-15-2013 8:38 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Humans were around during the time of prehistory. Archaeology and other disciplines prove it.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 8:38 PM Faith has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 908 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 131 of 301 (703145)
07-15-2013 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
07-14-2013 12:55 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
No I meant 90%, a guess at how much of the science is uncontaminated with Old Earth / evolutionist assumptions.
Hmm. I would have to take a guess at your meaning of "evolutionist" but my guess is that it refers to people that accept evolution and DO NOT make distinction between macro and micro and realize they use the same science. If I extrapolate further, I can see that you accept science that has not been "contaminated" by "evolutionists".
You previously accepted the science behind the influenza vaccine.
You admit that vaccine is the result of evolution.
You claim to accept science that is not "contaminated" by "evolutionists".
These have been YOUR admissions. I am not making any of this up. It must be a real pain to be you. However, i am seriously doubting that you believe a word you type. This level of trolling gives /b/ a run for their money.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 07-14-2013 12:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 9:16 PM hooah212002 has replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 908 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 132 of 301 (703146)
07-15-2013 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Faith
07-15-2013 9:09 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
They both use the same science, the same methodology, the same theory. There is zero functional difference. None. Accept one, you accept the other. Period.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 9:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1551 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 133 of 301 (703147)
07-15-2013 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by hooah212002
07-15-2013 9:11 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
The problem here is simply that you refuse to grasp that there is a distinction between observable microevolution, which is scientifically known, and macroevolution, which is pure speculation. You are simply stumbling over your own semantics, insisting on evolutionist theory, which is known as begging the question. Try understanding that Creationists make a distinction between that which is observable, which is amenable to scientific method, and that which is not observable, such as macroevolution, which is purely conjecture.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 9:11 PM hooah212002 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by hooah212002, posted 07-15-2013 9:24 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 135 by Coyote, posted 07-15-2013 9:25 PM Faith has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 908 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 134 of 301 (703148)
07-15-2013 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
07-15-2013 9:16 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
No. The problem is that you are a dishonest liar and I have proven THAT beyond a reasonable doubt by using your very own words against you.
Why do you have such a problem saying "I do not like any science"? Why do you feel the need to pander to some sciences? It would be far more honest of you.
Why don't you tell us what sciences you claim to accept and feel are compatible with YEC? You have dodged that question more times than I care to count.

"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 9:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2213 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 135 of 301 (703149)
07-15-2013 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
07-15-2013 9:16 PM


Re: Science meets Faith
Creationists make a distinction between that which is observable, which is amenable to scientific method, and that which is not observable, such as macroevolution, which is purely conjecture.
Creationists want to pick the things they like from the vast body of science and discard the things they don't like, and they try to rationalize some reason to separate those two.
But all of science uses the same scientific method, so creationists look increasingly silly as they try to find some logical reason to accept one set of findings while rejecting others.
But we all know the real reason has nothing to do with science at all--it is adherence to old tribal myths that is the real reason for picking one part of science and discarding another.
In other words: it is an irrational rationalization.
And pretty funny to watch too.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 07-15-2013 9:16 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024