Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8993 total)
68 online now:
ICANT, nwr (2 members, 66 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,211 Year: 10,959/23,288 Month: 211/1,763 Week: 178/390 Day: 67/32 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   This settles it.. Never moving down south..
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 116 (19300)
10-08-2002 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Tranquility Base
10-08-2002 3:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
nos

Have a look at the use of the word 'distinct' in my post. Maybe it's nothing to do with bananas.


What can be more 'distinct' than a banana? There is no other fruit which looks like it. Being distinct is not evidence of your god. It is evidence of evolution through the use of beneficial mutations getting passed along to the next generation.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-08-2002 3:06 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 116 (19301)
10-08-2002 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Tranquility Base
10-08-2002 3:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RV

My 2 lesson syllabus for creation (see Quetzal's thread) outlines the evidence for creation that is Bible free. This is appropriate for a governmnet school course. It will not stop me from elsewhere demonstrating evidence of the Biblical God.


In order to have creation you need a creator and that creator is called god. And since the only place you will find god (Christian god) is in the bible it is totally impossible to separate the two.

Plus, you contradict yourself by saying the it can be taught without the bible yet you state that you want to demonstrate evidence for the so-called "Biblical God". Your agenda is quite clear.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-08-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-08-2002 3:09 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 12:27 AM nos482 has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 750 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 78 of 116 (19306)
10-08-2002 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by RedVento
10-07-2002 12:47 PM


quote:
And finally accept that creationism is not, will never be, science. No ideology springing from a religous text can be construed as science. Period.


Actually, creationism could be practiced scientifically. Of course, it would have remained the failed theory that religious naturalists abandoned long ago in the 17th century if it were scientific.

http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html

"Religious creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight. Philip Henry Gosse made this claim in Darwin?s time in a work entitled Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published in 1857.

If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own ?scientific? tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Gish has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists."

------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."

-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by RedVento, posted 10-07-2002 12:47 PM RedVento has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Mammuthus, posted 10-08-2002 9:08 AM nator has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 79 of 116 (19307)
10-08-2002 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by nator
10-08-2002 9:02 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
quote:
And finally accept that creationism is not, will never be, science. No ideology springing from a religous text can be construed as science. Period.


Actually, creationism could be practiced scientifically. Of course, it would have remained the failed theory that religious naturalists abandoned long ago in the 17th century if it were scientific.

http://www.skepdic.com/creation.html

"Religious creationism could be scientific, however. For example, if a theory says that the world was created in 4004 B.C. but the evidence indicates that Earth is several billions of years old, then the theory is a scientific one if it is thereby taken to be refuted by the evidence. But if, for example, the ad hoc hypothesis is made that God created the world in 4004 B.C. complete with fossils that make the Earth look much older than it really is (to test our faith, perhaps, or to fulfill some mysterious divine plan), then the religious theory is metaphysical. Nothing could refute it; it is airtight. Philip Henry Gosse made this claim in Darwin?s time in a work entitled Creation (Omphalos): An Attempt to Untie the Geological Knot, published in 1857.

If the age or scientific dating techniques of fossil evidence is disputed, but considered relevant to the truth of the religious theory and is prejudged to be consistent with the theory, then the theory is a metaphysical one. A scientific theory cannot prejudge what its investigative outcomes must be. If the religious cosmologist denies that the earth is billions of years old on the grounds that their own ?scientific? tests prove the Earth is very young, then the burden of proof is on the religious cosmologist to demonstrate that the standard scientific methods and techniques of dating fossils, etc., are erroneous. Otherwise, no reasonable person should consider such an unsupported claim that would require us to believe that the entire scientific community is in error. Gish has tried this. The fact that he is unable to convert even a small segment of the scientific community to his way of thinking is a strong indication that his arguments have little merit. This is not because the majority must be right. The entire scientific community could be deluded. However, since the opposition issues from a religious dogmatist who is not doing scientific investigation but theological apologetics, it seems more probable that it is the creation scientists who are deluded rather than the evolutionary scientists."


******************************

Try explaining that to Wordswordsman and watch the sparks fly


This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by nator, posted 10-08-2002 9:02 AM nator has not yet responded

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 116 (19309)
10-08-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Tranquility Base
10-08-2002 3:09 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RV

My 2 lesson syllabus for creation (see Quetzal's thread) outlines the evidence for creation that is Bible free. This is appropriate for a governmnet school course. It will not stop me from elsewhere demonstrating evidence of the Biblical God.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-08-2002]


Lets suppose for a minute that Creationists have it right. Creationists put forth enough evidence that we were created, in fact they discover the creator even. However, what if this creator happened to be a giant space bunny, and our creation was nothing more than bunny gas. Would you then be satisfied? Or would the contradictory view of the bible creator and the actual creator put you at odds? Of course the answer is that you would then NEED to discover who created the creator, and so forth until you came to the conclusion you wanted. That we were created by a kind diety who put us here for a reason. THAT is why creationism is not a science. It is a metaphysical search that has no place being taught along hard sciences, that have no such biases or hidden agendas.

RedVento


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-08-2002 3:09 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 12:15 AM RedVento has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 116 (19466)
10-10-2002 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RedVento
10-08-2002 10:12 AM


RV

Why is any of that relevant?

All we are talking abou is using the tools of science to identify the origin of genomes and strata. Stop saying 'if this, if that'. Let's go one step at a time. If science tells us we were created by a space bunny then so be it.

Science has uncovered many evidences suggestive of creation and flood. You can sidetrack to space bunnies. I will use science to track down what happened.

The fact that I believe the Bible is only relevant if you doubt my scientific integrity. There is nothing unscientific about a believer finding evidence for creation if one has scientific integrity.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RedVento, posted 10-08-2002 10:12 AM RedVento has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 9:47 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 85 by RedVento, posted 10-10-2002 11:38 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 116 (19467)
10-10-2002 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by nos482
10-08-2002 8:07 AM


nos

In your happy little universe it is obviously impossible to conceive of the scenario that God did create and leave behind evidence. That is quite ridiculous. You paint creationists as stoneage thinkers but use this type of logic.

As in the above post my agenda is irrelevant if I have integrity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by nos482, posted 10-08-2002 8:07 AM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 8:41 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 116 (19503)
10-10-2002 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 12:27 AM


Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

nos

In your happy little universe it is obviously impossible to conceive of the scenario that God did create and leave behind evidence. That is quite ridiculous.

You should join us in the real world, it is free of the ignorance and superstition of yours. No, what is ridiculous is believing in an imaginary invisible sky father who will punish you if you do the least "bad thing", but still loves you.

You paint creationists as stoneage thinkers but use this type of logic.

Don't blame me if they are painting a self-portrait.

As in the above post my agenda is irrelevant if I have integrity.

A creationist with integrity? HAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for the laugh.

[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 12:27 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 84 of 116 (19508)
10-10-2002 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 12:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RV

Why is any of that relevant?

All we are talking abou is using the tools of science to identify the origin of genomes and strata. Stop saying 'if this, if that'. Let's go one step at a time. If science tells us we were created by a space bunny then so be it.

Science has uncovered many evidences suggestive of creation and flood. You can sidetrack to space bunnies. I will use science to track down what happened.

The fact that I believe the Bible is only relevant if you doubt my scientific integrity. There is nothing unscientific about a believer finding evidence for creation if one has scientific integrity.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]


+++++++++++++++++++++

Hi TB,
I don't think what RV is saying is irrelevant at all. Believers have decided to believe that "science" finds or "proves" the flood or creationism. However, it is not by application of the scientific method. It is not science.

I don't think that he is questioning your integrity TB. I believe you when you say you believe in creation for example (I know, the grammar of this sentence sucks). But I do question that you came to that belief through science or application of the scientific method. In fact I deny that you could come to that conclusion via a scientific approach.

Cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 12:15 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 8:51 PM Mammuthus has not yet responded

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 116 (19523)
10-10-2002 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 12:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RV

Why is any of that relevant?

All we are talking abou is using the tools of science to identify the origin of genomes and strata. Stop saying 'if this, if that'. Let's go one step at a time. If science tells us we were created by a space bunny then so be it.

Science has uncovered many evidences suggestive of creation and flood. You can sidetrack to space bunnies. I will use science to track down what happened.

The fact that I believe the Bible is only relevant if you doubt my scientific integrity. There is nothing unscientific about a believer finding evidence for creation if one has scientific integrity.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-09-2002]


You are misenturpriting my message. I am in no way questioning your methods. I am questioning your motives. HOW did you come to the conclusion that creationism is even a valid option? WHY do you want to show the bible to be true? At what point does your search to validate the bible become nullified? How much counter evidence has to be given? COULD there ever be a time that you say "You know, I really wanted creationism to be it, but seeing all this other evidence that points to something else, I have to admit that creationism ISN'T it." Is that EVEN a possibility in your mindset? That is what I am questioning. For 99.9% of creationists I would make the leap and say no, they will never be able to get to that point. However, I would say that probably 80% of actual scientists would be willing to accept the possibility that ToE might not be it, just as they are willing to admit that The Big Bang Theory might not be it. THAT is my point. That for all the high and mighty claims of science, creationists are trying to further a RELIGOUS agenda, based totally on FAITH, regardless of the scientific methods used to validate it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 12:15 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 8:49 PM RedVento has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 116 (19586)
10-10-2002 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RedVento
10-10-2002 11:38 AM


RV

My personal Christian experience makes it unlikely I will disown literal creation. I personally think the data is too murky. I just don't know what would happen if the data pointed incredibly clearly to evoltuion. All I can say is what I believe now. And all I am doing on this web site is explaining why I believe the data points to creation at the gross level and can be interpreted in detail that way as well. I clainm no proof. The real reason I believe in creation is becasue of my Christian experince and almost any creaitonist will tell you that. The data itself can be interpreted either way with approximately the same success.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 10-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RedVento, posted 10-10-2002 11:38 AM RedVento has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 91 by Joe Meert, posted 10-11-2002 2:18 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 95 by RedVento, posted 10-11-2002 1:31 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 116 (19587)
10-10-2002 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Mammuthus
10-10-2002 9:47 AM


Mammuthus

I admitt I did not beleive through science. But having beleived I can see that the science does point to creation.

What about others? I know several creationist who claim to have come through science and others through Biblical archeology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Mammuthus, posted 10-10-2002 9:47 AM Mammuthus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 10:10 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 116 (19590)
10-10-2002 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 8:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
RV

My personal Christian experience makes it unlikely I will disown literal creation. I personally think the data is too murky. I just don't know what would happen if the data pointed incredibly clearly to evoltuion. All I can say is what I believe now. And all I am doing on this web site is explaining why I believe the data points to creation at the gross level and can be interpreted in detail that way as well. I clainm no proof. The real reason I believe in creation is becasue of my Christian experince and almost any creaitonist will tell you that. The data itself can be interpreted either way with approximately the same success.


I've got news for you, it does point to evolution as being real. The evidence is so overwhelming that even the Catholic Church had to accept it as the truth.

The only reason why creationists may interpret the data the wrong way is that they don't use real science, they believe in pseudo-science where if the evidence doesn't follow the theory the evidence is tossed out and the theory is kept.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 8:49 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 116 (19592)
10-10-2002 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Tranquility Base
10-10-2002 8:51 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Mammuthus

I admitt I did not beleive through science. But having beleived I can see that the science does point to creation.

What about others? I know several creationist who claim to have come through science and others through Biblical archeology.


Only if you use pseudo-science, but hey pseudo-scientists also believe in alien made crop circles and pyramids, psychic surgery, and other such nonsense as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-10-2002 8:51 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Tranquility Base, posted 10-11-2002 1:07 AM nos482 has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 116 (19599)
10-11-2002 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by nos482
10-10-2002 10:10 PM


Nos

It sounds like you better start showing us what this pseudo-science is that we use.

A hint before you do - don't mix up the scientific evidence with the potential creative cause uncovered by the evidence or even the miraculous nature of the hypothesis being tested by scientific observation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by nos482, posted 10-10-2002 10:10 PM nos482 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nos482, posted 10-11-2002 7:46 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020