|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Points Of View | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hello b0ilingfrog, and welcome to the fray.
The evidence is always the same. It is the interpretations that differ. In science the first basic common interpretation is that there is a single objective reality. The alternative is to suppose that there is no single objective reality, that nothing is real -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class? In science second basic common interpretation is that the objective evidence we observe\experience\witness truly represents that reality. The alternative is to suppose that evidence is false -- is this your position? Should that position be taught in science class? In science third basic common interpretation is that we need to test our concepts against the evidence of reality to weed out falsehood and fantasy. The alternative is to suppose that we don't need to test concepts to weed out falsehood and fantasy -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school? In science the final common interpretation is that any invalidated theories are false and no longer relevant to understanding reality. The alternative is to suppose that we need to consider every theory that has ever been proposed as still possibly as true as any other -- is this your position? Should it be taught in school?
While I can not join with most Creationist in labeling evilution as a religion it is most certainly a belief system and no more valid than mine. Creationists choose not to put their faith in the decades of research of men but in a single volume that has yet to require correction (because it is written by God). Perhaps what you have trouble with is understanding how things can be acknowledged as valid information without a belief system, with tentativity and the open-minded skepticism that allows for concepts to, not only be falsified, but to actively seek such falsification, and to discard all falsified information as invalid.
Careful scrutiny of the evidence indicated to me that it was not noble objective seekers of truth that established evilution. The "evidence" in nearly every case if discovered today would have to be rejected. This is particularly true of human evilution. On a broader scale recent repeatable experiments in stratigraphy and sedimentology overturn at least the first three principals used to date rock layers. Radiometric dating has proven hugely unreliable and is based on uninformataian assumptions that are not in the least scientific. In as much as the debate seems to center on time, the evidence evilution is standing on is rapidly eroding and yet another correction will have to be made. Perhaps you would like to start a thread of just what this "careful scutuiny" involved. Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics. Hint: you will need to form a coherent and readable post. One with line breaks between paragraphs is a usual minimum for readability. Seeing as you use "evilution" you are obviously not a "noble objective seeker of truth," so I wonder how you, from your dirty tower of obvious bias, can know objective truth and how it is arrived at? What do you use to test concepts for validity? Do you, for instance, really know what evolution is? Do you know what the theory of evolution is? Sure, it's ALL point-of-view -- but in order to communicate one point-of-view to another you need to work with the same definitions as a starting point. Otherwise we are talking about two entirely different concepts while using the same words: confusion is bound to occur, wouldn't you agree? For instance, if your interpretation is that evolution is something different from what evolutionary biologist are talking about you will not be talking about the same evolution that evolutionary biologists are talking about. Rather you will be talking about something that is in your imagination. See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. for more on this common problem with creationist propoganda.EvC Forum: Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking. Enjoy. ps - as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Here is a link to a site which refutes the common creationist claims. Some of these have been seen, and refuted, so often they are even numbered! Here is another one, but not as well organized:
Arguments we think creationists should NOT use Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yup I am reely new. Listen I keep trying to reply to Anglagard and keep seeing it in Coyotes page. What Am I doing wrong? I followed your instructions This is a forum with threads, you are posting on a thread, so all responses are posted to that thread in chronological order. However, if you look at the top right you will see a message that says that this is a reply to messsage 20 by bOilingfrom. You will also see this at the bottom left of a message, as well as a listing of what messages by whom are replies to your message Take some time and try to post a message that is more than an off the cuff reply, but one with supporting information. Try NOT to use videos or websites as arguments, they can be your substantiation, but we like YOU to summarize what you think is so compelling about them. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks b0iingfrog,
Absolute truth, no argument. As long as there is an equal playing field to "invalidate" theories I am in total agreement. Majority rule is not invalidation when it comes to truth. Ask any lynch mob. Of course, to do otherwise would be special pleading, and yes the appeal to popularity is another fallacy.
In that regard none of us has a monopoly on the distant past. Where I rely on dogmatic scripture you rely on dogmatic theory. I submit that uniformatarianism is dogma and that any deviation from it is academic heresy, you would say my scriptural perspective is dogmatic as well. ...... On definitions, well gee what can I say? Uniformity continues to redefine itself somehow. Look it up for yourself. I was stating it it terms consistent with the those that established the principle of uniformity in terms of geological theory at the time of it's inception. Curiously science does change with new evidence and increased awareness of the truth. Along that lines are concepts that are invalidated: the concept that the universe behaves in a uniform and steady state way has been invalidated. The concept that the universe behaves in a manner consistent with the known laws of physics etc has not. If uniformitarianism did start with both steady state uniformity and according to all known laws of the behavior of things, and has been revised to eliminate the invalidated steady state uniformity, then that is just science doing science. It also still means that to discuss uniformitarianism TODAY that you use the definition used in science TODAY. See
and
Note: you can't have it both ways, dogmatic adherence to old concepts AND constantly redefining itself.
I read more than the bible. Toss out uniformity and I might call it science. I don't disavow what I read in science rags as quickly as you might what you see on AiG and you probably been there more than me. So much of what you believe was heavily influenced on the early definition of uniformity (look it up if you can't believe me) and it is just an assumption. A leap of faith far greater than mine. Wait.... lemme guess.... another AiG talking point, right? Consider steady state uniformity tossed. Whether you think it was the original theory or I think the current theory doesn't include it, is really irrelevant when we look at the modern science of geology. A lot has been learned in the last 100 plus years. Now can we agree that there is good reason to consider uniform behavior according to the laws of physics etc? We do have evidence for this, from radioactive decay on earth to radioactive decay in stars.
I think I rejected that already but we should at least teach that there is one belief that inspired guys like Newton that there is a creator God. That his belief did not diminish his capacity to interpret the physical world around all of us nor express it's parameters in whole rational numbers. As a Deist I see science as a way of understanding the work of god/s, but not able to confirm/invalidate spiritual existence (outside the realm of objective evidence). As a Deist I see no problem in teaching kids to understand American history and the beliefs that inspired people like Thomas Jefferson to chart a new course in human events, and to apply that belief to the formation of a rational form of government based on the sound judgment of educated people (yes he was an elitist in that regard).
All that being said you went outta your way to help me post and I am grateful to you for that. I also think you went out of your way to not be condescending and at considerable effort on your part. I wish I was better at that. Thanks, I appreciate that. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024