Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
506 online now:
Faith, kjsimons, Tangle (3 members, 503 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,814 Year: 21,850/19,786 Month: 413/1,834 Week: 413/315 Day: 9/82 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Even Younger Earth Creationism
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4208 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 31 of 76 (449863)
01-19-2008 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by TheNaturalist
01-19-2008 1:39 PM


Hey, the Nat. Your humor meter is apparently malfunctioning. Check the batteries. This is a tongue-in-cheek thread trying to "out-creationist" the creationists. :D

Welcome to EvCForum, by the way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 1:39 PM TheNaturalist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by TheNaturalist, posted 01-19-2008 2:40 PM Quetzal has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4208 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 45 of 76 (450179)
01-21-2008 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Am5n
01-20-2008 1:36 PM


Re: to the science jock and his pet dog.
I have to admit your post title about the "science jock and his pet dog" caught my attention. Although you are evidently taking exception to TheNaturalist, I can't figure out how you knew he had a pet dog, and since I'm a "science jock", and my avatar has a picture of my pet dog, well... Anyway, caught my attention whether you meant to or not.

I don't have much to say, given the vitriol of your responses to TheNat. However, I'd like to ask you about this statement:

Thats what natural scientist believe... and I really consider them to be a pain in the ass, since they are selfish pointless debaters.

I thought all modern scientists were "natural scientists". I've never seen the term used as an epithet before, tho'. I've also never seen the differentiation you make between them and "evolutionists" (unless you're making some subtle distinction that is beyond me). Could you possibly elaborate on your meaning? For instance, is there a different kind of scientist other than "natural"? Are there scientists of your knowledge or acquaintance that study something other than nature? What is the difference between "evolutionist" and "scientist" (natural or otherwise)?

Enquiring minds want to know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Am5n, posted 01-20-2008 1:36 PM Am5n has not yet responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4208 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 47 of 76 (450239)
01-21-2008 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Am5n
01-21-2008 11:40 AM


Wow! Ididnt mean you, although I probably should have given out a survey saying, "Who is a science jock and has a pet dog?".
What kind of breed is that?

Heh. Probably not necesary - it was just an odd coincedence. I figured (based on the posts) that you weren't referring to me particularly.

According to the breeder, she's a full-blood golden retriever with a fairly long pedigree, including a few champions. However, from both her looks and her behavior, I find that hard to believe: there's GOT to be some Irish Setter in the woodpile somewhere. Regardless, she's definitely my best friend. :D

sure there are different kinds of scientist. other than natural? sure. take a look at this link:http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

AND

I just believe some Evolutionist are more open minded to what other people believe, then that of a Natural scientist. It's just only how I observe them, nothing more.

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, it didn't appear to answer my question. Maybe you could highlight the part that does (I freely admit I can miss stuff sometimes). Given the fact that I am both an "evolutionist" - in the sense that I accept evolution as the best current explanation for the diversity of life - and a "scientist" - in the sense that I "do science" for a living - I'm still not seeing the contrast.

I can see that there is a difference between "natural theology" (as practiced throughout most of the 18th and 19th Centuries), and "natural science" as currently practiced, but again I'm missing something. Natural science means to me "the study of the natural world". I guess it would exclude the supernatural by definition, but if that's the only issue I don't see the problem. After all, God (or whatever your particular conception relates to that term), isn't really evident in nature. You could probably argue that some conceptions of god (speaking generically) are compatible with the study of nature, but then you're moving over to deism (god the initial artificer) or even pantheism (nature IS god).

Obviously, this ain't the thread to go into depth on those issues. I don't want to get "purpled" :D .

Anyway, thanks for your reply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Am5n, posted 01-21-2008 11:40 AM Am5n has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Am5n, posted 01-21-2008 4:54 PM Quetzal has responded

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 4208 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 51 of 76 (450395)
01-21-2008 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Am5n
01-21-2008 4:54 PM


so, do you want me to reply to this or what?

Nah, we better not. We'll get purpled for sure. We can pick it up on some other thread.

Best.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Am5n, posted 01-21-2008 4:54 PM Am5n has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Am5n, posted 01-21-2008 10:50 PM Quetzal 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