Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
27 online now:
CosmicChimp, jar, JoeT, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 20 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,628 Year: 18,664/19,786 Month: 1,084/1,705 Week: 336/518 Day: 12/88 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 47 of 303 (242512)
09-12-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


The forensic science analogy
Ben writes:

This is (approximately) how some forensic science works. You have some data, and you have a known conclusion. You work at determining what's in between.


Yes, I have often noticed this similarity. ID suffers from the same problem.

Part of forensic science is investigating to try to determine what happened. But a part of forensic science occurs after you have a suspect, and you are attempting to produce a case that can be argued in court. It is this second aspect that is somewhat analogous to YEC thinking (and to ID thinking).

Let's remember that there have been a disturbing number of cases of innocent people on death row, as a result of this kind of forensic science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 9:55 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:56 AM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 92 of 303 (242598)
09-12-2005 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Ben!
09-12-2005 12:47 PM


Re: The forensic science analogy
Ben writes:

Maybe we need "YEC Emprical" forums, where this methodology is the standard, ...


I like this idea. I think it would be a fine addition to EvC.

I would expect that the moderators would have to watch this forum, and suspend posting privileges there for people who abuse it. I would not be surpised if some from the science side of the house were to earn suspensions for that forum.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 12:47 PM Ben! has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 2:41 PM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 122 of 303 (242691)
09-12-2005 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by CK
09-12-2005 2:41 PM


Re: The forensic science analogy
CK writes:

I honestly don't understand how this is suppose to work besides encouraging flaky science?


It won't be science, and it won't claim to be science. It will be the YEC theories of the world.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 2:41 PM CK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 5:36 PM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 138 of 303 (242803)
09-13-2005 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:00 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
often it's really not evidence but untestable interpretations of evidence that you are treating with such confidence.

When you next travel on an airplane, remember that you are doing so on the basis of untestable interpretations of evidence.

I've said many times that science subjects God's word to evidence,

Indeed, you have said that many times. It has been wrong every time you have said it.

but YECs subject evidence to God's word.

I expect that's wrong, too. Many YEC's have not even read the Bible. For those who have read it, the most you can say is that they are subjecting the evidence to their untestable interpretations of the Biblical text.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:00 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:29 AM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:32 AM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 142 of 303 (242809)
09-13-2005 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:32 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
You have simply failed to get the point despite my explanations. God's word is the Bible and if evidence contradicts it science chooses the evidence over God's word.

On the contrary, what you are saying is incorrect. As normal people would read your words, they are a statement about the intentions of scientists. What you are saying, in effect, is:
Scientists read the Bible. Scientists come to interpret it in the same way that you interpret it. Scientists then come up with scientific accounts that deliberately contradict this interpretation of the Biblical text.
But that's not what happens at all. Scientists are just following where the evidence leads them. Often, they believe that they are investigating God's creation, and are not in any way contradicting it.

What you could perhaps be saying, is that scientists are coming up with accounts that contradict your understanding of what is God's word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 9:04 AM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 147 of 303 (242877)
09-13-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
09-13-2005 9:04 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
Yes, but this is a typical evasion, because my understanding is the traditional orthodox understanding.

You are still missing the point, which is that your assertion "science chooses the evidence over God's word" is a statement about the intent of scientists, whereas in fact most scientist are not acting on any such intent. My suggested rewording was to express your point in a way that does not falsely ascribe intentions to the scientists. Granted, you don't like my wording. Choose your own. But use a wording that doesn't falsely ascribe intentions.

The allegorical view of Genesis is an invention of the liberal churches since the Enlightenment and especially since Darwin, which is what I mean by an accommodation of the word of God to science.

The "traditional orthodox understanding" of the flood appears to be that Noah took two of each kind onto the ark. The descendents of those later evolved (micro evolution, not macro evolution) into the diversity of life we see today (including the fossil record). As best I can tell, this "traditional orthodox understanding" is the invention of Ken Ham. It is a very recent interpretation.

Like it or not, traditional orthodox theologians are heavily engaged in making interpretations of the Biblical text, and adapting those to fit modern times.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 9:04 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 9:57 AM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 153 of 303 (242902)
09-13-2005 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by Faith
09-13-2005 9:57 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
Any scientist who knows what the Bible says about Creation and the Flood is intentionally denying it by supporting contradictory views. Those who don't know what the Bible says may be excused for having no such intent.

Faith is a liar.

Now that was a statement about your intentions. There is as much basis for this statement about your intentions as there is for your statements about the intentions of scientists -- i.e. none.

What I am trying to say, is that your statements about scientists are nasty. They are not statements that could be made under "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." They are not statements that could be made under "Love thy neighbor as thyself." When you repeatedly make these false allegations of intention, you are being quite unchristian.

It sounds like creationist thinking in general, not that of any particular creationist, but in any case it is not an interpretation of the Bible but a scientific hypothesis based on the Bible. The Bible says Noah took seven of the clean Kinds into the ark, and two of the unclean. How their descendants varied from then on is NOT an interpretation of the Bible but a scientific hypothesis that takes the Bible as foundational.

Did Noah take two (or more) lions, tigers, sabre toothed tigers, two african elephants, two indian elephants, two mastodons, two kangaroos, two koalas (to name just a few)? Ken Ham says No. Like it or not, that is an interpretation of the biblical text. You cannot dismiss it as "but a scientific hypothesis".

The idea that fundamentalists are taking the Bible literally, while liberals are interpreting it, is just nonsense. Fundamentalists are up to their necks in interpretation.

If you want a strictly literalist reading of the Bible, as free of interpretation as is possible, you might go to an athiest web site. The athiests enjoy pointing out what the text actually says, for they delight in pointing to the numerous contradictions that emerge from such a literalist reading. It is only by means of their heavy dependence on interpretation, that fundamentalists avoid these contradictions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 9:57 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:39 AM nwr has not yet responded
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:44 AM nwr has responded
 Message 157 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:56 AM nwr has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 158 of 303 (242919)
09-13-2005 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
09-13-2005 10:44 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
And there is no nasty anything in saying that if you know the Bible and are willing for it to be falsified you are putting science above God's own word. It's simple fact.

It is nasty when you make allegations regarding the intentions of scientists based on your interpretation of the Bible. An assessment of a scientist's intentions must be based on that scientist's own interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 10:44 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:03 AM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 162 of 303 (242925)
09-13-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Faith
09-13-2005 11:03 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis
Yes it is true that I do not bind myself by political correctness or theological liberal correctness either, but if God did author the Bible, so that it is to be believed as written, which was held by most Europeans until quite recently, it is simple fact and not nasty at all to say that affirming anything that denies His word is a denial of God.

The issue has nothing to do with political correctness, not with "theological liberal correctness". I can only conclude that you are using these to evade responsibility for your erroneous allegations about the intentions of scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:03 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:39 AM nwr has responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 169 of 303 (242954)
09-13-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Faith
09-13-2005 11:39 AM


Re: Not Bible interpretation but scientific hypothesis

Do not reply to this post, it's off topic.

-AdminBen

Obviously we are miscommunicating and should end this conversation.

I agree that we are miscommunicating. But it isn't as simple as ending the conversation, if that means you will continue to post offensive statements.

Let me try to make my point another way:


Here are three statements that I might make, if pretending to be Faith:

Scientists are making choices that I see as going against the Word of God.

Scientists are making choices that go against the Word of God.

Scientists are choosing to go against the Word of God.

The first of those is a statement about the behavior of scientists, and is presumably correct.

The second is also a statement about the behavior of scientists. It is a statement that I believe to be wrong, but that I would nevertheless understand as communicating your opinion.

The third is a statement about the intentions of scientists, and is both false and offensive.

I am asking you to choose wording that comments on the behavior of scientists, and does not make false and offensive allegations about their intentions.

This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/09/13 12:28 PM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 11:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

nwr
Member
Posts: 5586
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 268 of 303 (261939)
11-21-2005 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
11-21-2005 10:44 AM


Re: why the YEC postion is bankrupt.
In a debate you either agree to accept your opponent's premise or not.

In formal logic, you either accept the premise or you do not. If you accept the premise there is nothing to be debated except the proper use of logical deduction. If you reject the premise, there is nothing to debate at all.

In debates, it is usually the premises that are being questionned and being debated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 10:44 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by Faith, posted 11-21-2005 1:01 PM nwr has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019