Faith's Participation in EvC

Holding to your guns maybe a good thing if you are holding on to the right gun.I find nothing admirable in vigorously maintaining a position without well reasoned convictions. Or nothing praiseworthy in not expressing a certain measure of doubt, commensurate with the weakness of the available evidence. This is especially true if someone willing employs well known logical fallicies and dishonest debate tactics only to protect the ego, gratify a personality defect, or maintain a perfectly comfortable delusion.Ed Conrad of the "man as old as coal" fame could be described as someone who sticks to his guns - not much to admire there.On the other hand, being able to modify or even completely change your position, after careful evaluating new evidence is commendable. A fine example of this is the Glenn Morton story at:http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htmIf you have not read his story it is a worthwhile read.Concerning Faith, I have not been here long and consequently do not have a strong opinion. Like others here I have recently had suspicions of her being a troll.However, I shudder at the concept of banning her participation. If I was a commited creationist though, I may think otherwise, as her own words typically harm her own supposed philosophical alliances if anything.I know if Voltaire was a member of the EvC forum, he would have a choice phrase for this situation. Edited by troxelso, : speling mistaak

I am busy so I must be brief. We are talking about the science forums! Irrational arguments and logic fallacies are not valued and will not lead to any new understanding. The Credo on the front page here is:Understanding through knowledge and discussionI guess I need to read up on the ground rules for discussion in the science forums. If this is a debate between Evolution/Deep Time and "Creation Faith" and not between "Creation Science" and irrational biased arguements are valid the Creationist have won - by default. If this is the case I will not participate as only frustration will result. Yes trolls often use quantity to satisify their need. If you think quantity has value you should visit talk.origins. One well reasoned post is worth 10000 irrational posts Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

Look I haven't asked anyone to believe that my Flying Spaghetti Monsterism premises are science, merely to understand the logic that if the Flying Spaghetti Monster Bible is given by the Flying Spaghetti Monster then those premises are facts and valid as a basis for scientific discussion. You don't have to believe any of this, merely understand that it is valid logic and Flying Spaghetti Monster creationists believe it.Can you and I agree philosphically on this?If so, you don't mind if I start gumming up the science forums with posts claiming that we should not be questioning on "IF" the solid earth was formed from a chaotic mass of bubbling pasta but creative theories on "HOW". FSM is fact - The rest are details.My faith in FSM is as strong as your faith in the bible. If you believe your faith is more credible, please explain. Don't use any facts or evidence please - I don't want to your facts, as I have my own FSM based facts which are just as valid. How about a faith based creation debate right in middle of science forums?However I will admit to one weakness when I go to the doctor I request for traditional science based treatment and not FSM science derived treatments. How about you?Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

By dismissing FSMims as an effective foundation from which to base science you are really dismissing faith based science.You have no means at your disposal to truely invalidate my opinion... err... facts, other than pointing out that "no one believes in it". But what if instead I said Hinduism? Hinduism is not as easy to dismiss which has over a billion believers. Or what if I had said Hopi Creation Science? There are Hopi believers.Then Hindu or Hopi Creation Science would be on equal footing with Biblical Creation Science as a fair basis for scientific discussion as per your quote: Let me borrow some of your own words in bold...You do not have to agree with them, just merely to understand the logic that if ... their scripture or oral tradition ... is given by God then those premises are facts and valid as a basis for scientific discussion. They are on equal footing for consideration as yours, as are Norse, Roman, Pagan, Greek religious systems.The only way you could argue out of this is by presenting some "facts" to support your faith. This is where the hard work is. You have taken the lazy short cut and made the leap that the bible is "fact".You are using the english term "fact" rather loosely, which I think impairs communication.Here is websters definition concerning scientific fact:Fact: is an objective and verifiable observation.

Yes this thread is cooked as I suspect we are about to sink into a fruitless debate and split hairs on the meaning of the term "fact"However, Omnivorous it was not for nothing, as you did make me laugh.

Very well put. Which is the purpose of the science forums. This statement goes with the credoUnderstanding through knowledge and discussionNot hiding behind the indefensible "If God said it - it is fact". In which case all that is left is debating the meaning of some culturally unconnected obscure Hebrew word translation.

If some YEC'er brings some "facts" to bear that disprove lets say ice core dating or explains recorded sea bed lava magnetic reversals - I don't think expulsion would be on anyone's mind.Some lively debate perhaps and the truth will out hopefully.It is the stubborn insistence that one can define any premise they choose and then extrapolate logic beyond that premise and still have a valid basis of discussion concerning science. I think I belabored that point a few posts below. I would love to believe in YEC actually. However, evaluation of the facts and intellectual honesty prevents me from doing so, not some ego hook behaviour that you are trying to project.Yes faith's arguement of "Zeus said it - it is a fact" cannot be refuted. This is the last refuge of someone out of ammo.Concerning your last sentence above. I challenge you to state one arguement, or start a new topic, that Faith has advanced that "could not be refuted otherwise".

I will take your word for it that you destroyed the old earth arguements.Ok I made the egregious mistake of challenging you to list them here. How about starting a new fresh topic with your unassaliable position made clear. I should be scolded.But to the point, however I have my doubt that your points were decisive when you make statements like: BTW I asked you earlier if you agree that a Hindu or Hopi creationist also has a valid basis for discussing science based on their own premise that their 'God said it - it is fact'.In this respect is Bibical Creation Science and Hopi Creation Science on equal footing?

Please stop the Off Topic chatter. I take responsibility for sparking it. Let's keep on topic. Faith you should know better.

I made the mistake of providing a diversion for you to escape the question at hand.Is any premise, substantiated or not, make a valid basis to discuss science. Is Hopi Creationism just as valid as Biblical Creationism?Edited by troxelso, : added question mark

Randman stop it!!!! You are abusing this board.If you are so darn sure of your position package your position logically, refain from statements such as "god said so it is so" and submit it as topic. I am sure you will blow away the evos.

Faith has made this statement several times in the past few days and is quite proud of it.I even went through the trouble highlighting them below.I will retract the error of associating you with those statements.However notice how she ignored the "on topic" questions here on the invalid basis she has taken in science based discussion. Maybe that is why this topic exists. Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

Looks like you insist to go off topic - I will not reply anymore.I challenge you to repackage your's or Faith's strongest position and submit as a topic. Faith is not being called on the carpet here for her factual based arguements, even if you like to think so. She has repeatedly sought refuge behind her unsupported premise and makes claims that facts in the bible are just as valid as facts in the real world so there.

So you declare the on-topic subject matter as off-topic but take the off-topic diversion, I stupidly provided, and ran with it? Hmmmm....You have not answered the question...Is any premise, substantiated or not, a basis to make valid arguements about science. This is the claim you made earlier, except in reference to the bibical god. You out of hand will refuse other faith based claims.This is 4th time I have asked in several different flavors. Is Hopi Creationism as valid as Biblical Creationism?No insults to the Christian perspective as Hopi beliefs are complex and interesting.You have even claimed that "facts in the Bible are just as valid as other facts". I tried to get you to come to a common definition of the word "fact" so we could communicate. You ignored that.I give, this is senseless. Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.

Omni did not claim this line of discussion as off-topic. This is not true.Here is Omni's post which is certainly worth a reread Message 121. Omni restated my line of questioning.If you are so sensitive to off-topic discussion why did you take the diversion, I stupidly triggered, and run with it. I am beginning to understand your methods and they are not very Christian.Edited by troxelso, : No reason given.