Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blasphemy in Science
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 16 of 40 (147327)
10-04-2004 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by MrPhy42
10-04-2004 10:16 PM


Re: True...
You baba's r going to give ma a hernia. Bring back Unseuly unreuly!
Jack the ripper was also born - probably of a decent human.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 10:16 PM MrPhy42 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by coffee_addict, posted 10-04-2004 10:29 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 17 of 40 (147330)
10-04-2004 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mike the wiz
10-04-2004 9:45 PM


Re: True...
mike the wicked... I mean wiz writes:
The Gospel is true - even you know it, this is why you fight against it so.
Hello!?! My rights are being violated by the same people that claim the bible teaches love and tolerance. Being an "infidel," I plan to poke the bible to death.
Oh yeah, did I mention the fact that I plan to sit on christianity using my infidel arse?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mike the wiz, posted 10-04-2004 9:45 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 18 of 40 (147331)
10-04-2004 10:29 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mike the wiz
10-04-2004 10:19 PM


Re: True...
mike writes:
Jack the ripper was also born - probably of a decent human.
Probably?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mike the wiz, posted 10-04-2004 10:19 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 19 of 40 (147561)
10-05-2004 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrPhy42
10-04-2004 3:12 PM


I'm a creationist and I never hear the word blasphemy and science mixed by us.
All this stuff about origin subjects being involved in science however is where one contention is.
You say science theories are thrown aside when better evidence comes along. Well we say there was no evidence in the first place to justify Toe etc as a subject of science or dealt with as science.
Not just that the weight of evidence is not there but that the scale reveals precious little evidence to begin with
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrPhy42, posted 10-04-2004 3:12 PM MrPhy42 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by MrPhy42, posted 10-05-2004 3:58 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 10-10-2004 7:58 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 40 (147577)
10-05-2004 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Robert Byers
10-05-2004 3:31 PM


Anyone who says that there is no scientific evidence either does not understand the subject, wishes not to understand the evidence or most often has not even studied the fields involved and takes the word of other creationist who deem themselves professionals.
The fact is that it is out there. It is public knowlege, easy to find, but the fact is the majority of people have little understanding, and do not take the time nor effort to study the evidence and how it works in the first place.
You are also exactly right that there is no such thing as blasphemy in science. Not only does the word not exist, but there is no concept of such a thing. Science does not ignore evidence just because it does not fit withen preconcieved notions... people who are deffendign their faith do. Since they do that, and seem oddly convinced that science is a religion rather than varying feilds of study involving the natural world, then they seem to often assume that the practitioners of these fields must also protect their beliefs as the religiously faithful do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:31 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 4:20 PM MrPhy42 has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 21 of 40 (147592)
10-05-2004 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by MrPhy42
10-05-2004 3:58 PM


People are people. And Toe'ers have the same human motives as anyone.
And these motives are pride, faith issues etc. Creationists have always found our opponents (of coarse some not all) to defend thier views not with logic but instead a desperate desire to be right.
Perhaps your different and more confident.
For example Toe is all about conclusions of past unwitnessed events. So then evidence must be weighty enough to persuade mankind Toe knows what happened.
Well creationists say where is the evidence?
They say well its data and the scientific method that leads to a theory.
We say there is to little data(no fault of you)to have a careful examination (Scientific method) applied to it.
We press home the pont and tell mankind Toe is not science and is but a subject like history. Intelligent, prestigious but not science.
What should be clear to any observer is the evidence for Toe is scanty and not testable and so not science.
now why then do the small circles in these fields insist they deal in Science?
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by MrPhy42, posted 10-05-2004 3:58 PM MrPhy42 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by MrPhy42, posted 10-05-2004 4:44 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 23 by MrPhy42, posted 10-05-2004 4:47 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 40 (147598)
10-05-2004 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Robert Byers
10-05-2004 4:20 PM


No, evolution is not directly testable in the sense that you seem to be using. It is largely a historical science and must imply other means of testing to confirm the theories involved.
With historical sciences and the theories therein, we must look at the idea, and determine what we should see if the theory is correct. The theory of evolution (as it began) was vague, and held little in the way of known fact, more of speculation. Still, it did give us the ability to determine what we should see in the fossil record if it were correct.
The idea was that if the theory of evolution were correct we should be able to find fossil records of animal forms that are related to each other (and in the case of species that exist today) find a time line of the changing life coming ever closer to the forms that we see currently. Still, it is not enough to simply find fossils of creatures that may be in some way related. After all, if in the future fossils of modern horses, and zebras were found, it would not work to assume that zebras were a specie sthat later evolved into horses. The next key lies in where they were found, and what testable properties we can directly observe, such as determining the age of a fossil.
If the transitional animal forms fit into the correct genetic category and that coincides with the geological, and other testable time lines, then it is possible to create a determination based on observable evidence. To say that all evidence must be observed from beginning to end is a fallacy that does not fall under most any scientific criteria. We cannot physically observe the growth of a human in the womb as a constant, and especially not 100 years ago. Still the stages of growth were observable in other fashions. We cannot directly observe the core of our planet, but through other indirect observations, we are able to determine within a certain realm of accuracy what it is made of, and how it works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 4:20 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 3:28 PM MrPhy42 has not replied

  
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 40 (147601)
10-05-2004 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Robert Byers
10-05-2004 4:20 PM


And as for pride, a desperation to be right and issues of faith are concerned... if that were the case many non-creationists such as myself would still be attending the churches that we grew up in trying to defend the beliefs we were raised with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 4:20 PM Robert Byers has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 476 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 24 of 40 (147698)
10-06-2004 1:25 AM


in another thread, almeyda writes:
And this intelligence does not come from premeval ponds. And fish do not turn into people, not matter how many magic wands of 'billions of yrs and chance' are thrown around.
This is the kind of strawman about evolution that bothers the heck out of me. Besides the fact that almeyda is criticizing evolution as some kind of "magic wand" and turns around and expects us to believe in another magic wand, evolution ain't only about chance and time alone.
Hey admins, can't we do something about this?

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 25 of 40 (148426)
10-08-2004 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by MrPhy42
10-05-2004 4:44 PM


Wow. You are the first Toe'er I've seen on this forum to say that we are dealing here with history. Historical sciences as opposed to something else. Progress.
As you said it must employ other means of testing to confirm the theories involved.
And this is important. Those means must be substantive enough to justify a claim that testing has taken place to justify a theory being held.
Of coarse we would say Toe doesn't fit the bill.
Now you put forth the idea of what should be found in what layer as a test of Toe. I would say this would not test Toe but only a a prediction of Toe. a minor one. One that only barely touches on the subject of biology. In short its a fallacy to think fossils in sequence can be a test of a great theory of biology.
All other kinds of explanations can account for fossil sequence. And it is all specualtion by its very nature. Also of coarse the geology is itself speculation. Premise onpremise.
The test you suggest does not qualify to say Toe has been tested. even if the test worked and indeed was right.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by MrPhy42, posted 10-05-2004 4:44 PM MrPhy42 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 10-08-2004 11:05 PM Robert Byers has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 26 of 40 (148556)
10-08-2004 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Robert Byers
10-08-2004 3:28 PM


quote:
Wow. You are the first Toe'er I've seen on this forum to say that we are dealing here with history. Historical sciences as opposed to something else. Progress.
The operative word being 'science', of course.
quote:
As you said it must employ other means of testing to confirm the theories involved.
And this is important. Those means must be substantive enough to justify a claim that testing has taken place to justify a theory being held.
What would be 'substantive enough' for you?
quote:
Of coarse we would say Toe doesn't fit the bill.
And, of course, you will fail to back up your statement.
quote:
Now you put forth the idea of what should be found in what layer as a test of Toe. I would say this would not test Toe but only a a prediction of Toe.
Okaaaaaay. This is silly. So a prediction is not good enough for you. Why does it work then?
quote:
a minor one.
LOL! It wasn't so minor two hundred years ago when William Smith started predicting rock types and fossils on the horizon. To you this is 'minor', but flood geology failed miserably at this task of explaining fossils. Which one would you bet your paycheck on?
quote:
One that only barely touches on the subject of biology.
It barely touches on quantum mechanics also. So what? Above, you were saying that evolution is 'history' now you say it is biology. Which is it?
quote:
In short its a fallacy to think fossils in sequence can be a test of a great theory of biology.
If that's all you think evolution is then you are probably hopeless.
quote:
All other kinds of explanations can account for fossil sequence.
Such as?
quote:
And it is all specualtion by its very nature. Also of coarse the geology is itself speculation. Premise onpremise.
More nonsense. In fact, you just mentioned that it was predictive. Funny how all those speculations actually work! How do you explain this? Coincidence?
quote:
The test you suggest does not qualify to say Toe has been tested. even if the test worked and indeed was right.
It does work. Explorationists use it every day. Why do you think that is? More coincidences? Tell us what YEC would predict about the fossil succession. Then tell us who actually uses it.
And please tell us who you are to decide what is appropriate scientific procedure. Who gives you the authority to judge what is a 'minor prediction' or a 'major test'?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Robert Byers, posted 10-08-2004 3:28 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by MrPhy42, posted 10-09-2004 4:07 PM edge has replied
 Message 30 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 2:46 PM edge has not replied

  
MrPhy42
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 40 (148689)
10-09-2004 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by edge
10-08-2004 11:05 PM


Well, I wasgoing to ask those things, thanks for taking care of it for me edge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 10-08-2004 11:05 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by edge, posted 10-10-2004 3:25 AM MrPhy42 has not replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1705 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 28 of 40 (148769)
10-10-2004 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by MrPhy42
10-09-2004 4:07 PM


Well, ...
quote:
...I wasgoing to ask those things, thanks for taking care of it for me edge.
I'm sure you will get your chance. Robert will be on my ignore list with another post like that. Everybody starts out the same with me, but I have a low tolerance for cognitive dissonance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by MrPhy42, posted 10-09-2004 4:07 PM MrPhy42 has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5194 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 29 of 40 (148969)
10-10-2004 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Robert Byers
10-05-2004 3:31 PM


Robert,
Well we say there was no evidence in the first place to justify Toe etc as a subject of science or dealt with as science.
That's a bit rich, Robert. When I showed you the correlation between cladistics & stratigraphy you said it was too hard for you (words to the effect of). How can you possibly put yourself in a position to say the above?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Robert Byers, posted 10-05-2004 3:31 PM Robert Byers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Robert Byers, posted 10-13-2004 2:49 PM mark24 has replied

  
Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 4368 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 30 of 40 (149693)
10-13-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by edge
10-08-2004 11:05 PM


The operative word in fact is historical. It defines the difference from the other subjects that actually use science correctly and so have credibility to make thier claims.
To test Toe which makes great claims requires substantive evidence and testing. Everyone knows when this has occured or not. The little things done at present in Toe are not testing the Idea but dealing with minor aspects of it.
You asked me who I think i am to question authority here. well we have the authority the Bible. And if people claim by evidence that it is not true then we take them on. Toe etc has done this and in the name of professional confidence. (science) . So we strive, and very well, to show it has no right to make such claim. It is just speculation and not a learned endeavor.
Rob

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by edge, posted 10-08-2004 11:05 PM edge has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by MrPhy42, posted 10-13-2004 10:44 PM Robert Byers has replied
 Message 34 by Mammuthus, posted 10-14-2004 5:16 AM Robert Byers has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024