|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,574 Year: 2,831/9,624 Month: 676/1,588 Week: 82/229 Day: 54/28 Hour: 0/10 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: YEC approaches to empirical investigation | |||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
I just don't buy your forensic science analogue - would you like to give us an example of what you are thinking?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
How do you know it was a house? it's just your viewpoint it was a house - a conclusion coloured by your fallen nature.
I don't believe in burning - it's scientifically impossible - it says so in my book of faith therefore your explanation that burning had something to do with it is incorrect. Maybe the chemicals used to produce this effect that is close to burning are just beyond your ability to detect with modern science - have you considered that? No it didn't burn down - a different answer must be found.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Deleted - Life is just too short to get into this tail-chasing.
This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 10:59 AM This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 10:59 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Yes I think she is. Well he asked.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Ben - it's a nice idea it's just not going to happen.
A Criminologist may perfectly well understand the viewpoint of a murderer and how he constructs his reality but that does not mean that the criminologist is going to feel that viewpoint is valid or say to people "well it's horseshit of course".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
But the dead body IS just data rather than the conclusion (or rather our tests upon the body provide our data). The conclusion is what we reach from putting together our data.
"This is a dead body" is not a conclusion - it is a starting point (and what that is offered further context by it's surroundings, the location of other people etc) "white male 6"2 12 stone, toxicology work shows traces of..." is getting nearer to a conclusion. Frankly your answers seem to be throwing darkness over the issue rather than any light or is that just me This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 11:29 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
We have to be careful not to conflate two seperate positions:
1) YEC is true because I can show this with science 2) Yes is true because God says so and I can show this with science The positions are different And of course the more usual position 2) YEC is true because God says so and because the evidence against OEC is........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
The literalist tried it with his "how did the flood happen" discussion but as per normal (for YECs not him in particular) when faced with an ever-mounting list of reasons why large aspects of his theory was impossible, we were answered with "well let's just assume that element is true somehow and move onto the next bit".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
But the problem was:
A gets us to B gets us to C gets us to D gets us to E gets us to F. F being Rain (let's skip the rest). It rains therefore the flood is true THE END - it DOES invalidate the approach because there is no hope or even attempt of A,B,C,D either being explored or resolved (And with the flood A= The laws of physics being totally wrong as we understand).
quote: This is a wrong-headed example - for this to be an analogue, the calcuation of say..how much water it takes to cover the mountains would have to be beyond us and would continue to be so for the near future. We are not talking complex stuff - we are talking about throwing out everything we know about physics at the most basic level. We are not talking about small fine detail we are talking about throwing out whole disciples to make the conversation work. It's just nonsense to expect people who work and study the sciences to proceed on that basic - it's totally unrealistic. We might as well just post strings of nonsense! This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 01:18 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
But I've never SEEN a YEC case that does not require that!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Take 3: No dodging evidence
quote: Is that dodging the evidence? what about Carbon-dated ? is that to be considered a defacto faulty method? It would seems that every debate will stall within the opening stages but there will be no common framework to operate with. This is compounded by the fact that creation science is pseduo-science so it does not even provide an internally coherent framework for us to work with. I honestly don't understand how this is suppose to work besides encouraging flaky science? This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 02:44 PM This message has been edited by CK, 12-Sep-2005 02:47 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Well the logical course would be to run a thread under those conditions and see what happens.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Em..no we haven't.. you have made that claim, I don't see that many people accepting it - you seem to base this on the idea that because they think their belief=data then it is empirical in that sense - it's not. Anyone feel that YEC work in some empirical manner*? * as in consistantly empirical rather than "a dash of X, A dash of Y and let's throw the rest in the bin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
We can discuss those meta issues forever - let's see the practical outcome of trying this methodology.
I suggest one thread and a limited number of people - why don't we re-run an existing thread and see if the outcome differs in some significant manner from it's previous version?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4118 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Well we might as well just open a pseudo-science forum and be done with it.
I don't understand how those "theories" will develop without recourse to some elements of science (the bits they like) and the ability of others in the thread to use science to rebutt them. This makes less and less sense to me as we go along. Is anyone willing to start a thread so we can see how this would actually work - we can get nowhere just taking about it - we need to see it in action.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024