|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,435 Year: 3,692/9,624 Month: 563/974 Week: 176/276 Day: 16/34 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5841 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Splintering our Education System based on FAITH | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
The data is forced to fit it. There are upteen jillion bits of data involved. Prove the above statement or retract it. As has been pointed out to you (and you have admitted in more than one place IIRC) you don't know anything about the data. Since you stand on ignorance how can you possibly think that you can make the above statement?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2930 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
It's amazing but all the corroborating lines of evidence are like conspirators in a delusion. Evolution doesn't explain anything. The data is forced to fit it. And there are NO practical applications whatever. It is absolutely unnecessary to any of the practical business of science. It wastes time corroborating itself by multiplying delusion upon delusion. Best description of ID I've seen.
The question begging is on the evolutionist side of this. Over and over I've been answered here by arguments that come down to nothing more than "Evolution is true because it's true." Faith you don't know enough about the ToE to discuss it. You have been presented with hundreds of pieces of evidence, but your only response has been to accuse all scientists(exept for the Id ones) of lying, covering up and falsifing data. It is the Creo's and IDers who start out with a conclusion, then butcher the facts to fit. A closed mind can only be opened with a sledgehammer. Everybody seems to be out of step but you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2930 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
As has been pointed out to you (and you have admitted in more than one place IIRC) you don't know anything about the data. Since you stand on ignorance how can you possibly think that you can make the above statement? It seems that in Faith's world the less you know the more qualified you are. How many times has a YECer came to the forum, professed thier ignorance of science, proceed to prove it and then get very offended because noone would accert thier bare assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
As has been pointed out to you (and you have admitted in more than one place IIRC) you don't know anything about the data. Since you stand on ignorance how can you possibly think that you can make the above statement?
I've tried to look up data of various kinds hundreds of times and have found only evo theory. That's how I know. Look up fossils, dinosaurs, genome, anything, it is very hard to get simple facts. What you get is the explanation of the data. The facts are drowned in the theory. The biggest case of Begging the Question ever. The facts would do just fine without the theory baggage. That is, the dinosaur type, description, characteristics without the theories of its age and evolutionary relationships. Environment speculations are always interesting though. I figure they describe the pre-Flood world.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Evolution is a false model whether or not it generates scientific projects. Except that it isn't. It isn't a false model. It's an accurate and predictive model, and that's why its so universally accepted among biologists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It is absolutely unnecessary to any of the practical business of science. Hi. Refuted this already. To repeat - nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Biology without evolution is just stamp collecting - i.e. a large collection of unrelated facts with no predictive power. That's not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Look up fossils, dinosaurs, genome, anything, it is very hard to get simple facts. That's because the facts, by themselves, are useless. It's only within an explanitory framework that the facts have meaning, that they gain usefulness and allow us to make predictions.
The facts would do just fine without the theory baggage. Do just fine for what? Filling encyclopedias? That's not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Hi. Refuted this already. To repeat - nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Biology without evolution is just stamp collecting - i.e. a large collection of unrelated facts with no predictive power. That's not science. Yes, well evolutionism has no doubt served as a goad to scientific work despite its falseness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Look up fossils, dinosaurs, genome, anything, it is very hard to get simple facts. ==== That's because the facts, by themselves, are useless. It's only within an explanitory framework that the facts have meaning, that they gain usefulness and allow us to make predictions. That makes a nice statement of faith, and as I just wrote I'm sure the theory has been the impetus for all kinds of useful scientific work, but nevertheless oddly enough the explanatory framework simply does not explain anything and the facts could indeed do without it very well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Yes, well evolutionism has no doubt served as a goad to scientific work despite its falseness. Incorrect. Evolution has actually made possible scientific work that would not have been, otherwise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1488 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
but nevertheless oddly enough the explanatory framework simply does not explain anything and the facts could indeed do without it very well. Do what without it? Nothing. Facts without a framework don't serve any purpose. It's like a child's shell collection all tossed into a box. Sure it's nice to look at but its of no scientific value whatsoever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It seems that in Faith's world the less you know the more qualified you are. =-===== How many times has a YECer came to the forum, professed thier ignorance of science, proceed to prove it and then get very offended because noone would accert thier bare assertion. Clue to paradigm clash, parallel universes. What creationists want to prove doesn't require the great knowledge of science you all think it should, and a clue to this is the fact that even those creationists who have that knowledge get the same short shrift from you guys. I for one, and I'm sure most creationists who have visited here, have in fact given a great deal more than bare assertions, but you all just can't follow the argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That is a complete falsehood. Evolution was developed to explain three major patterns of evidence:1) Biogeographical distribution of species (important to both Drwin and Wllace) 2) The patterns observed in taxonomy 3) The change in time of life on Earth as shown in the fossil record None of these are adequately explained by creationist "theories". (e.g. "God did it that way" is not an adequate explanation - even if the existence of God is taken for granted - since God could easily have done it in a completely different way).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2930 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
[qs]Clue to paradigm clash, parallel universes. What creationists want to prove doesn't require the great knowledge of science you all think it should, and a clue to this is the fact that even those creationists who have that knowledge get the same short shrift from you guys. I for one, and I'm sure most creationists who have visited here, have in fact given a great deal more than bare assertions, but you all just can't follow the argument.[/s]
There's no paradigm clash 'cause you don't have a paradigm. If you require no great knowledge of science, why do you worry about knowledge. Links to AIG and other advocates are not facts. So we can't follow the argument you never presented? mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: The Flood is the creationist explanation of the fossil record, not something so empty as "God did it that way." The biogeographical distribution situation and the taxonomy situation are no problem for the creationist understanding that the species were all created by God just as He created mankind, each species AS that species, and let them procreate and spread over the earth and vary according to built-in genetic possibilities to adapt to different niches. Here's a nice website on the biogeographical problem, where much the same argument is made as I was originally trying to make back on the Natural Limitations to Evolution thread.
Biogeography and the increasing limitation of the genome
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024