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:   The Creationist Method
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 46 of 93 (413420)
07-30-2007 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Stile
07-30-2007 10:01 AM


Re: Maybe change your wording?
Stile writes:
This is what Creationists actually say, isn't it? That the evidence isn't wrong, simply the interpretation of it?
Actually, there are those who think the evidence is wrong too, such as those who believe nearly all fossils are fakes.
But perhaps you have a point. By far the majority of creationists challenge the interpretation of the evidence rather than the evidence itself. For example, those who believe readiometric dating to be false don't think so because they think the instruments are faulty, but rather because they think the assumptions behind the interpretation are.
I'll make a note of this and change it in version 3, along with my alternative mechanism to determine whether it is evidence or scripture that should be reinterpreted.

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Stile, posted 07-30-2007 10:01 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2007 3:15 AM Doddy has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4492 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 47 of 93 (413484)
07-31-2007 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Doddy
07-30-2007 8:12 AM


Re: My thread is derailing!
sorry Doddy , i did stray way off thread there ,
i got caught up in the moment .
so trying to glean some value out of my error ..
using it as an example of how scripture can be reinterpreted in light of moden evidence and knowleged .. is it not a good example of how far SOME will go , and yet other creo's will not move ..may be you need another PREHAPS branch to cover this route as well, where reinterpretation does not give an agreed black and white result ... it to an agreed area of uncertainty needing further evidnece / evaulation ..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Doddy, posted 07-30-2007 8:12 AM Doddy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 48 of 93 (413486)
07-31-2007 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Doddy
07-30-2007 9:11 PM


Re: Maybe change your wording?
That is not quite true. For instance creationists regularly deny the existence of transitional fossils - or more than a few transitional fossils - rather than admit that there are many.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Doddy, posted 07-30-2007 9:11 PM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Doddy, posted 07-31-2007 3:47 AM PaulK has replied

  
Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 49 of 93 (413492)
07-31-2007 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by PaulK
07-31-2007 3:15 AM


Re: Maybe change your wording?
But do they deny the existence of the fossils or just the interpretation that they are transitional?

Help to inform the public - contribute to the EvoWiki today!
We seek contributors with a knowledge of Intelligent design to expand and review our page on this topic.
Registration not needed for editing most pages (the ID page is an exception), but you can register here!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2007 3:15 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2007 3:50 AM Doddy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 50 of 93 (413493)
07-31-2007 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Doddy
07-31-2007 3:47 AM


Re: Maybe change your wording?
The existence. Randman, for instance repeatedly insisted that there were only a few transitional fossils. i.e. He assumed that the commonly used examples were the only transitional fossils known.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Doddy, posted 07-31-2007 3:47 AM Doddy has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 51 of 93 (413527)
07-31-2007 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by IamJoseph
07-30-2007 3:30 AM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
A scientific premise starts with evidence and builds with logical conclusions.
The most infantile and unscientific question is vested in the demand for proof of creation. Mostly, the questioner has no understanding of his question.
I would agree that creationists are often clueless and pursue scientific questions in an infantile and unscientific manner. But this thread is not about creationism -- it is about the creationist method used to arrive at conclusions.
This is a matter of curiosity among rational people due to the many false and irrelevant conclusions that creationists come up with: it does not appear to follow any kind of logical process. The typical creationist, it appears, cannot even comprehend simple statements of topics, and feel they can talk about whatever suits their fancy - as an example - and then argue that they are on topic when clearly (to a rational mind) they are not.
I suggest that a preamble be established first, then follow its course appropriately.
And the place to do that is ON YOUR OWN THREAD. This thread is not about what you think.
So start another thread IAJ -- hopefully it will prove more useful or productive than your one on "positive evidence for creationism" (which netted zero evidence but amply demonstrated creation-think).
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by IamJoseph, posted 07-30-2007 3:30 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 10:24 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 5:05 PM RAZD has replied

  
IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3667 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 52 of 93 (413535)
07-31-2007 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
07-31-2007 10:02 AM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
quote:
A scientific premise starts with evidence and builds with logical conclusions.
Science, like math and history, are pathways which give greater understanding of a positation or statute. Science was introduced in Genesis - the first scientific account of the universe. The first scientific equation is that a 'Seed shall follow its kind'; humanity has to affirm this by examinations and verifiable affirmations - via science, math or history - whichever fits the criteria.
Medicine was also inroduced here. The first separation of medicine from the occult is with the ID and treatment of infectious and contagious malignancies (leprosy). All theologies are not about rituals and dogmas: one even contains science, math, history and all the laws followed by the world today!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2007 10:02 AM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Vacate, posted 07-31-2007 10:40 AM IamJoseph has replied
 Message 54 by dwise1, posted 07-31-2007 12:04 PM IamJoseph has not replied
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2007 5:31 PM IamJoseph has replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 53 of 93 (413537)
07-31-2007 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by IamJoseph
07-31-2007 10:24 AM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
The first scientific equation is that a 'Seed shall follow its kind'; humanity has to affirm this by examinations and verifiable affirmations - via science, math or history - whichever fits the criteria.
Are you willing to be the one who affirms this by examination? A logical first step, since you claim this so often, would be to define "seed". A good second step would be to define "kind". If this is the first scientific equation would you be interested in being the first person in several thousand years to actually explain what it means?
If you are to continue saying that science must accept this as a valid premise, don't you think that its about time you put forward what the heck you are saying? How many threads are going to be derailed by your kinds and seeds before we are allowed to understand your use of the language?
**Sorry Doddy, this will be my last post here unless I can post something constructive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 10:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2007 12:07 AM Vacate has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 54 of 93 (413547)
07-31-2007 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by IamJoseph
07-31-2007 10:24 AM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
One of the side effects of the use of scientific methodology is the identification and documentation of evidence. Every endeavor which is truly scientific (as opposed to sham) will have generated documentation of a body of evidence. That was one of the points I used to raise about the "creation model" in the "Two Model Approach": If it were an actual model, a construct created from observation of the evidence for the purpose of explaining that evidence (which is basically what a theory is), then there should exist a body of evidence for it, so why would creationists do everything they possibly could to avoid presenting any of that evidence that they claimed to have?
In the recent thread calling for the presentation of positive evidence for "creation theory" (which name implicit claims that it was constructed based on the evidence, in which case there exists such evidence), none of the creationists could present any evidence. The best they could come up with was to repeatedly invoke the Bible (which does not in itself constitute scientific evidence, nor could anyone demonstrate that it referenced any physical evidence) and to state that it appears that there is design in nature.
So if there's no evidence, how could you claim creationism to be scientific?
I agree with RAZD. Propose a new thread for this topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 10:24 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 55 of 93 (413607)
07-31-2007 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
07-31-2007 10:02 AM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
A scientific premise starts with evidence and builds with logical conclusions.
Agreed.
In the case of Darwinism: they start with the ASSUMPTION that appearance of design does not indicate invisible Designer, unlike Creationism which assumes the opposite.
Darwinism begins with gross illogic and no evidence can ever overcome starting perverse logic.
I would agree that creationists are often clueless and pursue scientific questions in an infantile and unscientific manner.
Ordinary Atheist philosophy.
The typical creationist, it appears, cannot even comprehend simple statements of topics, and feel they can talk about whatever suits their fancy - as an example - and then argue that they are on topic when clearly (to a rational mind) they are not.
Since you are an evolutionist your opinion is quite predictable with no objective value whatsoever.
If a Creationist had said what you had just said then the same applies. The point is, RAZD, is that we know how you feel about Creationists. Mindless and rhetorical insults is the refuge of the intellectually defeated.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2007 10:02 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2007 5:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2007 5:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2007 5:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 93 (413611)
07-31-2007 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 5:05 PM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
In the case of Darwinism: they start with the ASSUMPTION that appearance of design does not indicate invisible Designer ...
Wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 5:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 57 of 93 (413615)
07-31-2007 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 5:05 PM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
hey ray, how's the book coming? i'm looking forward to reading it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 5:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 5:48 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 58 of 93 (413616)
07-31-2007 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by IamJoseph
07-31-2007 10:24 AM


Lobsters
All theologies are not about rituals and dogmas: one even contains science, math, history and all the laws followed by the world today!
Except laws against pedophilia, slavery, genocide, torture, arson, blackmail ...
But it does have a rule against lending money at interest, which I'm sure we'd all follow if it wasn't the economic basis of modern civilisation.
Oh, and a stern prohibition against eating lobsters.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by IamJoseph, posted 07-31-2007 10:24 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by IamJoseph, posted 08-01-2007 12:27 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 59 of 93 (413619)
07-31-2007 5:36 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object
07-31-2007 5:05 PM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
If a Creationist had said what you had just said then the same applies. The point is, RAZD, is that we know how you feel about Creationists. Mindless and rhetorical insults is the refuge of the intellectually defeated.
And yet you make my point by posting completely off topic. It's not an insult when it is the truth Ray.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-31-2007 5:05 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 60 of 93 (413623)
07-31-2007 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by arachnophilia
07-31-2007 5:27 PM


Re: Creationism is NOT a Scientific Premise.
hey ray, how's the book coming? i'm looking forward to reading it.
Late this year.
After reading it you will be enraged and I am looking forward to it.
Ray

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2007 5:27 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2007 6:59 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 63 by arachnophilia, posted 07-31-2007 9:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024