|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,516 Year: 6,773/9,624 Month: 113/238 Week: 30/83 Day: 6/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith's Participation in EvC | |||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
RickJB writes: Agree or disagree with Dawkins 'memes', they constitute a testable hypothesis. 'God in the gaps' on the other hand refers to an argument from ignorance that cannot be falsified. Therein lies the difference. I think that we are getting off topic here so I'll just say that there has been no one who has seen a meme, and no one has found it mathematically. It is an attempt to fill in the gaps of knowledge of the transmission of cultural or personality traits. Goddidit is the Theistic way and memes is Dawkins' Atheistic way. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
PaulK writes: If this is true it only supports my point. Flood geology has failed - apparently it has failed in spite of the abilities of the scientists involved. It follows that Flood geology is a blind alley of research - because it is based on false assumptions. Contrary to your claim that there is no creation science, regardless of what you personally think of flood geology, bonafide practicing geologists who research flood geology arriving at alternative interpretations of what is observed are doing science. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4370 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
Contrary to your claim that there is no creation science, regardless of what you personally think of flood geology, bonafide practicing geologists who research flood geology arriving at alternative interpretations of what is observed are doing science.
i'd like to see this shown someday, all i've seen from the creationist side is faulty research and fudged evidence that turns out to be wrong
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5250 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
GDR writes: I'll just say that there has been no one who has seen a meme.... A 'meme' is a conceptual term that is applied to things we do experience - music, words etc. But as I said, it is a tentative positive hypothesis. No one - not even Dawkins himself, I'm sure - would argue that the meme concept is cast iron at this point. The arguments and debates over the true value/role of memetics continue as we speak. However, when it comes "goddidit" it's all too clear that the existence of God is NOT up for discussion, despite the fact that has never been any empirical evidence of him. Furthermore, due to this lack of any empirical evidence, "goddidit" makes no positive claims, instead relying on "gaps" in scientific knowledge. Seriously, can you not see the difference? You make the classic mistake of equating religion and science. A given hypothesis (like the meme) is not seen as "fact" just because someone argues it. It may or may not become accepted only after being challenged and dissected. It will also always be subject to possibility of rejection at a later date. Is the "God hypothesis" similarly up for discussion amongst YECs? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17919 Joined: Member Rating: 6.7 |
quote: I note that you couldn't offer any evidence to refute my statements. In what sense is what they are doing "science" ? I say that it's just pseudo-science, trying to prop up falsified religious dogma. It's continued failure to adequately deal with the evidence is proof of that. The order in the fossil record has been known for a long time. Flood geology still can't explain it. Mainstream geology can.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4388 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Paul - I would point out that such a discussion is off-topic for this thread.
It is not however going to be off-topic for this topic.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Meme's are off topic here RickJB, Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4755 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Flood geology is off topic here, Rev. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1704 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So does bad debate drive out good? I'm not sure but let me give you some anecdotal evidence. In the past I have had offboard email contact with a number of long-term members of the boards - people with strong scientific backgrounds who no longer post. They don't post because they got sick of being dragged down the same deadend on every thread, they got sick of having their expertise rubbished. They got sick of the bullshit to be perfectly honest. The question that occurs about this is whether this is about specific creationist personalities, or about the less scientific knowledge among the creationists here perhaps, or just in the nature of the evo-creo debate itself. So the question would be whether this debate has ever gone in a direction that doesn't put off the evo scientists, here or elsewhere.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9012 From: Canada Joined: |
So the question would be whether this debate has ever gone in a direction that doesn't put off the evo scientists, here or elsewhere. Yes. On occasion someone comes along who doesn't know much; who knows they don't and actually wants to learn something. They actually read what is posted in reply to their questions. They, at least as a start, choose to accept that no one is lying to them. When they are told they have a fact wrong they listen and don't repeat the error again. They may have more or less of a struggle with dealing with the ramifications of finding out that they had some things wrong but at least they are capable of learning. Some choose to leave early on when they find out things aren't as they thought. Others hang around to learn more. What these few do NOT do is repeat the same errors over and over. They do not accuse everyone of lying to them. It is, I think, NOT a matter of less scientific knowledge on anyones part. The difference is a willingness to not simply say that they don't know very much about the science (though that can be hard to come by in itself) but to actually understand what that means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4388 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Ned hits on a very important point. If you are explaining a point to user X and User X says "oh I need to think more about this", then you feel you are enganged in useful discourse. However when you explain the same point to user X over and over and over and over again and user X keeps implying that you don't know what you are talking about/you are lying/you have your secret atheist bias/you are not a true christian and then also refuses to read any of the material you suggest or even consider reading it - that's hard work.
Dealing with that one individual over and over again is far more likely to get people to stop posting than posting the same point to 100 different people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13108 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
One other thing we have to keep in mind is the democratization of the Internet with regard to technical and/or scientific savvy. Ten to fifteen years ago, creationists who participated in on-line debate tended to be of a technical bent. That's no longer the case. We're getting increasing numbers of contributors who, if we're honest with ourselves but hopefully don't give voice to this, cause us to think, "Can anyone truly be this stupid or ignorant or blind?"
The answer, unfortunately, is yes. EvC Forum is not going to successfully educate waves of the uneducatable. The best we can do is shield ourselves from those unwilling or unable to intelligently discuss and/or explore a topic by enforcing the Forum Guidelines. Sadly this will exclude some truly nice people, but it can't be helped.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Michael Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 199 From: USA Joined: |
I get the feeling that we are about to see some punctuation to the equilibrium here at EvC.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
RDG writes: i'd like to see this shown someday, all i've seen from the creationist side is faulty research and fudged evidence that turns out to be wrong Regardless of your biased assessment of the research done by creationist scientists, research is part doing science. Creationist minded scientists over the centuries have likely done more overall to actually benefit the lives of mankind than evolutionist ones have. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
My apologies for addressing Revs message, AdminNosy. I went directly to the message from my profile and posted before I saw your off topic warning.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024