Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation science or not?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 46 of 97 (295206)
03-14-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by nator
03-14-2006 10:09 AM


Re: creation science is not science. Simple.
Actually, Schraff, I agree with you on your definition and apologetic defense of the scientific method! Creation science is not science.
Schraff writes:
Well, first you have to provide a testable, falsifiable theory complete with positive evidence that God exists, and then you must provide a testable, falsifiable theory complete with positive evidence that He made everything.
I do not agree with the possibility of a falsifiable reality in regards to faith, however. You either choose to take the leap or you do not.
Thats off-topic, anyway...so I will kindly bow back out.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 10:09 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 11:46 AM Phat has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 47 of 97 (295209)
03-14-2006 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Phat
03-14-2006 11:39 AM


Re: creation science is not science. Simple.
quote:
I do not agree with the possibility of a falsifiable reality in regards to faith, however. You either choose to take the leap or you do not.
I am right with you, Phat.
I just stated the above to make a point to the Rat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Phat, posted 03-14-2006 11:39 AM Phat has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 48 of 97 (295236)
03-14-2006 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by nator
03-14-2006 9:07 AM


Re: Agnostic vs. atheist
quote:
Being open minded and scientifically minded doesn't mean that one can never come to a firm conclusion that something doesn't exist.
How does this jibe with the scientific tenet of tentativity?
Because it is moderated by something I said a bit further down in the message. I am willing to revise my conclusion if new evidence comes to light. Really, it's no different from any other conclusion that science comes to. All conclusions are subject to revision based on new evidence. That doesn't make the conclusions any less certain, simply contingent.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 9:07 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 2:34 PM subbie has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 49 of 97 (295253)
03-14-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by subbie
03-14-2006 1:02 PM


Re: Agnostic vs. atheist
quote:
I am willing to revise my conclusion if new evidence comes to light. Really, it's no different from any other conclusion that science comes to.All conclusions are subject to revision based on new evidence. That doesn't make the conclusions any less certain, simply contingent.
In my mind, this makes you an agnostic athiest, not just an athiest.
(I consider myself an agnostic athiest, btw)
The athiest believes that there is no God or gods.
The agnostic athiest doesn't know if God or Gods exist or not because there is no evidence for their existence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 03-14-2006 1:02 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by 1.61803, posted 03-14-2006 3:13 PM nator has not replied
 Message 51 by ramoss, posted 03-14-2006 3:15 PM nator has not replied
 Message 53 by subbie, posted 03-14-2006 6:34 PM nator has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 50 of 97 (295266)
03-14-2006 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
03-14-2006 2:34 PM


Re: Agnostic vs. atheist
can i be a theist agnostic? i believe in god but am not certain of god's existance until i am shown compelling evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 2:34 PM nator has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 51 of 97 (295268)
03-14-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
03-14-2006 2:34 PM


Re: Agnostic vs. atheist
he agnostic athiest doesn't know if God or Gods exist or not because there is no evidence for their existence.
I would put it that the agnostic atheist concludes that there is no god based on the fact there is no evidence that any exist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 2:34 PM nator has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 52 of 97 (295293)
03-14-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by nator
03-14-2006 10:09 AM


Re: creation science is not science. Simple.
Well most of your post has already been covered, I don't need to start repeating myself and get into a he said she said debate with you again, but I will answer this:
quoteoes love exist?
Can we not study love?
I believe we do, and it is a subjective feeling.
Whatever. What does this have to do with Creation science being considered scientific?
Love exists? Can you prove it?
This is no different from the concept of God existing.
The theory is God exists. They try to prove it.
If God really doesn't exists, they can keep ignoring evidence, but eventually there will come a point where they won't be able to do that any more. DOesn't make it non-science. I agree it can make it bad science. I would rather they admit that certain evidences do not fit their theory of God, and say they don't have an answer at this time.
But couldn't the same be said for missing evidence when it comes to TOE? Is there any solid evidence against evolution? Or is it so complex, that only the lack of evidence is the only really solid thing against it?
quote:Well the way I study creation, and God it does.
Mmm hmm. Does the way you study God qualify to be science?
Well you might not consider it science, but I do. I will say that I experience subjective evidence for God's existance, and against God's existance. The latter may be a result of lack of understanding of the true God. But I do remain open minded. From what I observe the odds are that God exists. It's not 100% from a scientific stand point, but what is really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 10:09 AM nator has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 53 of 97 (295324)
03-14-2006 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by nator
03-14-2006 2:34 PM


Re: Agnostic vs. atheist
schrafinator, I guess you can characterize what you think my opinion is any way you want to, it's no skin off my nose. But I do not simply have no opinion based on a lack of evidence. I have come to a conclusion that there is no god based on the evidence I see. And it's more than just a lack of evidence of a god.
Of course, all of this is a bit tangential to the point that I was making in my original post in this thread. My conclusion is based on my analysis of the evidence that I have seen and what I consider to be rational conclusions drawn from the evidence. My conclusion is open minded in the sense that I will re-evaluate it if sufficient additional evidence appears. I view my conclusion much the same way as I would any other conclusion I come to based on a scientific analysis.

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 2:34 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 54 of 97 (295330)
03-14-2006 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Modulous
03-14-2006 7:55 AM


Re: "No" vs. "I don't know."
I can say with good certainty that any stories about said entity affecting the physical world by leaving 'gifts' is probably erroneous. That it is a global phenomenon is almost a dead cert myth.
That's what confuses me. Santa Claus is defined as the figure who rides around in a sleigh with 8 tiny reindeer, shakes when he laughs like a bowl full of jelly, sees you when you're sleeping and knows when you're awake, etc. If an entity exists who does not have these qualities than this entity is not the putative Santa Claus.
I mean, does a guy named "Santa Claus" exist? Sure, there's one in every mall around the Christmas season. Some weirdos even legally change their names to Santa Claus. But that's not what we're talking about. You conclude as well as I do that no entity matching the description of the putative Santa Claus exists. Why, then, the conclusion of agnosticism about Santa Claus? Haven't we just demonstrated the supportability of being atheistic about Santa Claus?
I don't believe he exists, but I appreciate that ultimately I only have a lack of evidence with which to form that conclusion.
When we look at every point in space within a room, and we find that my lost keys are not in the room, the reasonable conclusion is "my keys are not in the room", not "we must be forever unsure in regards to whether or not my keys are in the room, since all we have to base that on is lack of evidence." When we find a lack of evidence where the evidence must be if it existed, that is itself evidence. I know it's really trendy to consider the lack of evidence as nonindicative, I know it really makes us feel like we have graduate degrees in philosophy, but the simple fact is that the lack of evidence is evidence, and everybody here reasons that way. I mean, who here believes that Bush's invasion of Iraq was justified based on the idea that the lack of evidence for WMD's? I mean, we can't conclude that he didn't actually have them, right?
Well, we can and do, and we're willing to cast our vote for president based on that reasoning. But somehow when the topic is God, the rules are different? I think it's just intellectual timidity on the part of self-described "agnostics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Modulous, posted 03-14-2006 7:55 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 10:32 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 57 by riVeRraT, posted 03-14-2006 10:33 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 67 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2006 6:47 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 68 by Modulous, posted 03-15-2006 6:51 AM crashfrog has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 55 of 97 (295374)
03-14-2006 10:32 PM


No-true-santa
I would apprciate if we would stop using Santa as a comaprison with God, and the science that would follow. Not because I am insulted or anything, but I think you should at least comper apples to apples. So make the comparison to another God, not Santa.
Sant science and Creation science, 2 different things.

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 56 of 97 (295375)
03-14-2006 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
03-14-2006 6:59 PM


Re: "No" vs. "I don't know."
quote:
But somehow when the topic is God, the rules are different? I think it's just intellectual timidity on the part of self-described "agnostics."
Well, yes, when the topic is a supernatural, possibly all-powerful and all-knowing entity, then yes, the rules are different.
It's not just that I don't see any evidence of God, it's that is it possible that God exists but we have no way of detecting God, just as invisible pink unicorns exist but I have no way of detecting them.
Therefore, I cannot say that they definitely do not exist.
To be intellectually consistent, I MUST say that I don't know if they do not exist or not.
I cannot make a positive claim for the non-existence of a thing using a lack of evidence for that thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 6:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by riVeRraT, posted 03-14-2006 10:35 PM nator has not replied
 Message 59 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 10:48 PM nator has not replied
 Message 61 by subbie, posted 03-14-2006 10:57 PM nator has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 57 of 97 (295376)
03-14-2006 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by crashfrog
03-14-2006 6:59 PM


Re: "No" vs. "I don't know."
but the simple fact is that the lack of evidence is evidence, and everybody here reasons that way.
Lack of evidence is evidence of what? Because there is plenty of lack of evidence when it comes to TOE.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 6:59 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 03-14-2006 10:52 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 58 of 97 (295377)
03-14-2006 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by nator
03-14-2006 10:32 PM


Re: "No" vs. "I don't know."
Therefore, I cannot say that they definitely do not exist.
Objectively.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 10:32 PM nator has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 59 of 97 (295379)
03-14-2006 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by nator
03-14-2006 10:32 PM


Re: "No" vs. "I don't know."
It's not just that I don't see any evidence of God, it's that is it possible that God exists but we have no way of detecting God
I grant you that there's no way to disprove the existence of an irrelevant God; i.e. one who exerts no influence on the universe or on our lives. Such a God might as well not even exist. I must remain agnostic about such gods.
But they're irrelevant. If I act like they don't exist, there's nothing they're going to do about it. About those gods, in addition to being an agnostic, I'm a practical atheist. I don't know that they don't exist but I act like I do, because there's no difference between those gods existing and not existing.
I cannot make a positive claim for the non-existence of a thing using a lack of evidence for that thing.
I think you can. If I wanted to make a case that a ham sandwich didn't exist in my refrigerator, I would point to the lack of any evidence that there's a ham sandwich in my refrigerators.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by nator, posted 03-14-2006 10:32 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 03-14-2006 11:02 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 97 (295381)
03-14-2006 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by riVeRraT
03-14-2006 10:33 PM


Re: "No" vs. "I don't know."
Because there is plenty of lack of evidence when it comes to TOE.
I see plenty of evidence, not the lack of evidence. But you're committed to remaining ignorant so it's no surprise you see it the opposite way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by riVeRraT, posted 03-14-2006 10:33 PM riVeRraT 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