Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
30 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK, Pressie, vimesey (5 members, 25 visitors)
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Post Volume: Total: 863,627 Year: 18,663/19,786 Month: 1,083/1,705 Week: 335/518 Day: 11/88 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   YEC approaches to empirical investigation
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 4 of 303 (242449)
09-12-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ben!
09-12-2005 9:55 AM


Forensic Science
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.

Well, let's look at this analogy.

If by "known conclusion" you mean - "we've got a dead guy here" and the work is determining how he died, then I would agree. But I would argue that what the YECs are saying is more akin to "this was murder, now let's prove it".

Additionally, in forensics, they assume that damage done was done the same way it is in the real world. ie if the flesh is burned, someone probably applied heat or chemicals to it.

For the YEC doing foresnsics, you can't take anything for granted. If the body was burned, they must figure out if that fits their "this was murder" model. If it does, terrific. If it doesn't, then it obviously wasn't burned.

If it could be shown conclusively that the cause of death was a heart attack (however you show that), the scientist would be pretty much done at that point.

The YEC now has to figure out how the murderer caused the heart attack. Was it an undetectable poison? Was it some undetectable heart attack ray guy?

This is the problem with working with your conclusion already known. It's why YEC is not science, nor can it ever be 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 11 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:54 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 10 of 303 (242458)
09-12-2005 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:47 AM


Re: I don't buy it
Unshakable conclusion: A house is burned down.

YEC conclusion: The house was burned down by God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:47 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by CK, posted 09-12-2005 10:54 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:03 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 24 of 303 (242478)
09-12-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:54 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Faith's looking at data. It's data in her mind, and you need to understand that. You can't force somebody to take your own viewpoint Nuggin. You can disagree with Faith, but at least take the time to understand and accept.

Believe me, I've given up on that insanity. What I am saying is that the data "there is a dead guy" is not the problem. The problem is that YECs have a conclusion "this guy was murdered" before doing the work answering the question "how did this guy die".

It may very well be that in some cases the dead guy was in fact murdered. It's also possible that in some cases the guy died of natural causes.

But, because the conclusion, "this guy was murdered" was set in stone before the "investigation" began, it's the only possible outcome.

Do you want to live in a society where that's the rule of law? Want to be on trial for murdering your 105 year old grandmother with a magic heart attack gun while she slept?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:54 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:12 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 28 of 303 (242484)
09-12-2005 11:11 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Ben!
09-12-2005 10:57 AM


Why should we?
It's just to push others to try and take your perspective.

What you are suggesting in downright insulting. You think that since Faith can't do science, then scientists should try to look at it from her point of view.

We have. We understand what she's saying. We just KNOW that she's wrong.

If she can KNOW that she's right, then we can KNOW that she's wrong. It's a non-starter, sure. But that's the end of it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 10:57 AM Ben! has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 32 of 303 (242490)
09-12-2005 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:02 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
You can try to change her faith, but until it changes (and yes, it may not), these are the facts.

I'm speaking for Jar here, but I really don't believe that anyone here is trying to "change Faith".

What we are doing is a two pronged approach.

1) We are trying to show to the spectators that Faith is arguing a fantasy.

2) We are trying to stop people like Faith from destroying the education system in America.

If Faith never changes her mind, it doesn't change either of those two goals


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:02 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:19 AM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:32 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 34 of 303 (242492)
09-12-2005 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:03 AM


Re: I don't buy it
Just because you disagree with me doesn't me my comment doesn't have value. I am not parodying the YEC view.

You are trying to present their view in a certain (false) light.

You honestly expect us to believe that your version of the YEC is correct when it's nothing like the one they are presenting? Come on.

Present something close to what they are saying and we'll have a concensus, but you're just falsifying things to try and paint them in a good light.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:03 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:38 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 38 of 303 (242497)
09-12-2005 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:12 AM


Re: Forensic Science
Nobody's asking you to accept the stuff into the law in this thread

What?! Hello? Have you even heard of Kansas? They very specifically are asking us to accept into law their perspective on religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:12 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:26 AM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 83 of 303 (242585)
09-12-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
09-12-2005 11:32 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
There is no real debate here. It's all a complete sham. Nobody has any intention of considering any idea that contradicts the Establishment position. That's why YECs need to be warned up front to STAY AWAY.

I agree with what you are saying, but disagree with how you are saying it.

Your suggestion seems to be that both sides are arguing from a stand point of "I accept this conclusion to be true, and no amount of argument will change that."

The reason ToErs get so frustrated with YECrs is that you think that we are just as willing to give in as you are. We aren't.

For the record, our possition is very simple. "We believe what the evidence shows us to be correct."

The more evidence that indicates the same thing, the more reason we have to believe it. The more reliable that information, the more reason to believe it. The more testable that information, the more reason to believe it.

This is dramatically different from "We believe that this one source of information is more valuable than all other information combined."

These two possitions can never come to agreement, so debate is futile.

And if you truly are hands off about the schools, then I have absolutely no problem with you going the rest of your life with your beliefs.

I think we both can agree that what an individual does in the privacy of their own home is their business and no one elses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 11:32 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 1:36 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:00 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 87 of 303 (242590)
09-12-2005 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Ben!
09-12-2005 11:38 AM


Re: I don't buy it
I look at those the same as simply asserting your position without addressing arguments

Why should I be held to a standard higher than the YECs?

I admit, if I want my point to be credible, then I need to back up my argument, but frankly I think this board needs some more of us Dark Side ToErs.

The YECs will never understand our frustration until they are faced with having to debate their own style of debate.

I noticed the none of them took on my "Crack Pot" ideas thread, because they know that when faced with their techniques, all that can come is frustration.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 11:38 AM Ben! has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Ben!, posted 09-12-2005 1:43 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:19 AM Nuggin has responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 89 of 303 (242592)
09-12-2005 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Ben!
09-12-2005 12:47 PM


Re: The forensic science analogy
Maybe we need "YEC Emprical" forums, where this methodology is the standard, and people must follow the rules of this methodology:

There's no point to such forums as the debate would always be as follows:

Poster 1: YEC is fact.
Poster 2: Navaja Creation is fact.
Poster 3: Norse Creation is fact.
Repeat.

If you establish at the outset than anyone's personal belief regards of fact/evidence is empirically true, there's no room/reason for discussion.

It would be a nice opportunity for people to tell their individual beliefs, but discussion is out of the question


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 94 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2005 2:43 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 91 of 303 (242597)
09-12-2005 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by jar
09-12-2005 1:10 PM


Re: A direct question
Would an old earth proponent change his or her position if presented with incontrovertible evidence that the earth is young?

Absolutely, assuming that the evidence could explain the numerous indicators that we've collected from all the different fields of science.

For example: If we are in some sort of "Matrix" world, and we wake up to discover a different world where all the "laws" or our world no longer hold true, I doubt that a ToEr would still insist that the Matrix-world was absolute


This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by jar, posted 09-12-2005 1:10 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 128 of 303 (242704)
09-12-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by Faith
09-12-2005 3:33 PM


Re: Forensic Science
Yes, you think "evidence" trumps God Himself.

Here's the fundamental flaw in fundamentalist thought.

We don't think the evidence trumps God. We think the evidence trumps you. You think you speak for God, we don't agree.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 09-12-2005 3:33 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 136 of 303 (242795)
09-13-2005 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:00 AM


Re: Oh, it's resolvable.
I think we are in complete agreement here, though I must point out that
I want it clearly recognized that a priori excluding the YEC premise renders debate impossible

can just as easily be

"I want it clearly recognized that a priori excluding of science renders debate impossible."

Be both have our basis for reality. We don't agree with each others basis. End of discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:00 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 779 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 139 of 303 (242804)
09-13-2005 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
09-13-2005 12:19 AM


Re: I don't buy it
Stop calling my theories straw men characictures. A straw man is when someone presents an argument just to knock it down.

I am supporting my theories. Others may try to know them down. They may be wrong, but they certainly are not straw men.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Faith, posted 09-13-2005 12:19 AM Faith 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