Faith's Participation in EvC

"Fairness" is not about giving each side an equal chance to "win".The side with the best case should win in a fair debate. To say that creationists should be given special privileges because their case is hopelessly weak is just patronising. "Yes, yes, you're an irrational religious fanatic but just so we can have a real fight we'll pretend to accept some of your false dogmas. But really we all know you're wrong". I don't think that that is what creationists want. It's not what I want either - it seems completely pointless to me.The interesting thing about Faith is that she chooses NOT to debate on the issues that are supposedly key to her beliefs. She does not discuss theology, she does not make a case that God meant Genesis to be intneded as a literally true account. Yes these are the things that are the foundations of her case - things that could and should be discussed outside the science forums. If creationism really had a case it would be found there - and creationists SHOULD be at least as competent to discuss that case as most of us are to discuss the scientific evidence.

The rules aren't set up to exclude creationists. Creationists often claim that they can compete on the scientific level - Faith has oftne asserted that the evidence "really" supports her YEC views. If that were true then the rules would NOT exclude creationists. So the rules only require creationists to live up to their own claims. Are we to be expected to pretend that faith-based beliefs held in spite of the evidence really are science just because it would be convenient to creationists ?

quote:

---

creationism is not about religion. really, it isn't. it uses religion as its foundation, but it's points are not theological. in fact, quite often, theology works AGAINST creationism, a point i continue to make here in the theology fora. creationism is a pseduo-scientific extension of personal faith. it is the bastard child of pop-science and a personal relationship with jesus.

---

Creationist theology is bad theology - but it is a theology. And when creationists are being honest (or at least more honest than usual) they will say as much. It may not be entirely honest - although the Bible is said to be the word of God it seems to carry less wait then the creationists own beliefs - but unless creatioism is totally dishonest even there, it is still a religious view (even if that religion is self-worship).

You have asserted that it is reasonable to accept your "Biblical premises" as facts within science - no matter what the evidence. That is contrary to the scientific method. That was the point of the thread - and one it seems that you still fail to understand.

quote:

---

You are simply insisting on your own theology here. Biblical creationists don't read the Bible as you do. You can't merely pronounce their reading false on the basis of yours, and those who agree with you right. That's begging the question.

---

That isn't what I am doing. I am talking about READING the Bible instead of assuming that it says something without even checking or twisting the clear meaning.For instance if I disagree with this claim:

quote:

---

2. Ezekiel 17 mentions some destruction of trees etc of Lebanon by a great eagle with great wings, possibly indicative of aircraft...

---

Is it because my "theology" differs or is it because Ezekiel 17 does not mention the destruction of any trees ? Try reading it and see who's right.

Yes I saw your reply and it was thoroughly wrong-headed. Creation "science" is not science because it places religious dogma over and above any empirical evidence.

Did I say that was one of the points I disputed ? I suggest that if I provide an example that you actually use it rather than jumping to completely erroneous conclusions.

quote:

---

Can a creationist who believes the flood happened and who ignores any idea that it did not happen do science (according to their philosophy of science and not yours)

---

Only in areas where the presumed Flood does not affect their work.If we allowed unchallengable dogmas to be accepted within science then science itself would become meaningless. Any and every pseudoscience would have to be accepted as valid. All you have to do is start by assuming that it is valid - from astrology to perpetual motion scams to the Flat Earthers. And I can't say that astrology isn't marginally better than the Flood - if there's a sound refutation of the "Mars effect" I haven't seen it.

quote:

---

Lets leave it. This thread is about something else. I won't even try to get the last word in. Can't say fairer than that

---

You could be fairer than that - you could admit that you were completely wrong.

quote:

---

I understand your concern but this is not what I think Faith proposes. "Creo" science must stand up as any science ever has - since the day science was born.

---

But Faith is proposing that it should not have to. The Flood HAS been thoroughly refuted by scientific standards. No viable Flood-based explanation of geology has been produced. But nevertheless Faith wants to go on treatign the idea that the Flood is responsible for geology as a fact. Faith isn't agreeing that "creo sceince" has to stand up - because the "science" she's proposing fell flat on it's face back in the 19th Century and has never stood up since.

quote:

---

Newtons motivation might well have been to discover how Godidit but he didn't engage in alchemy.

---

Oh yes he did. And (unorthodox) theology. And none of that work is counted amongst his scientific output.

quote:

---

A person presenting a theory involving a world wide flood is not beholden to your philosophy of science Paul - they are beholden only to science itself.

---

So now you are saying that "creo science" DOESN'T have to "stand up". It gets a special pass, allowing it to redefine science to include anything it likes. Why can't the astrologers and alchemists and Flat Earthers do the same ?

quote:

---

What constitutes water might well be a subject to investigate. But to assume command and define what constitutes water (as is so often the evo stance here) is, I think, the root of the problem.

---

The problem is that you are demanding that "creo science" should be accepted as science by fiat. You aren't giving any reasons why it should be. In fact you start off by saying that it has to "stand up" - whcih means that it should be rejected because it doesn't.

quote:

---

She has said as much in so very many words. And now she is up for being banned because of it. Shame on you who would have it so.

---

I haven't made any such demand.But the calls for Faith to be restricted aren't based on her making reasonable demands. It is based on the fact that she often refuses to engage in honest debate and not infrequently resorts to abuse. They shouldn't be ashamed of themselves - you should for your dishonest misrepresentation of the situation.

quote:

---

PaulK, when you and others make statements like this, I see you and the others equally as problematic to productive debate as Admin sees Faith.

---

So you want this site censored to ban facts that creationists don't like.

quote:

---

There are good creationist scientists, many of whom are highly educated PHDs, et al and who do science equally as efficiently thoroughly and capably as evolutionist scientists.

---

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.

quote:

---

For example Chris Miller, scientist and geologist, is a geologist for an oil company who for most of his life was an avid evolutionist. He is now an avid creationist and one of the best at refuting evolutionism with his unique approach as a geologist that I've read or heard so far

---

Pardon me, but you aren't the best judge of these things. You have demonstrated that you will uncritically go along with any idea that you happen to like - without any real critical examination. For instance your endorsement of claims about hurricanes - taken from a website about penny stocks, which you endorsed because it was the only site which said what you wanted ! (Anybody with a critical eye would have taken that as a warning sign that the site was wrong).

quote:

---

Regarding theology debates here, there are some prominent members who continually drive us who've been into the Bible extensively for decades daily up the proverbial wall, showing little evidence of sufficient knowledge of the Bible to debate effectively in some of the threads.

---

What you meant is that you get driven up the wall by people who actually read the Bible rather than assuming that it says what you want. I suppose it must be embarassing for you to be wrong so often after all your "decades" of study - but by talking about it you only embarrass yourself further.

The real pattern is one of baseless and false accusations from the creationist side.Faith's argument on microevolution critically relied on the assumption that mutation could never replace the lost variation. That claim was never adequately supported - and it required ad hoc assumptions about "super genomes" to account for the observed genetic variation.Thus Faith's argument failed.

quote:

---

Oh and the constant refrain that creos never have answered the ORDER of the fossil record, which was recently repeated somewhere, by jar I believe, is simply false. It's been answered in two ways: one has to do with the fact that the bottom layers of the geo column are marine life, and land life appears later. The other answer is related to an experiment done by a Frenchman that came up not long ago.

---

Yes this should be dealt with as an example of the real problem here. The first point has bean dealt with here - and as I recall it Faith actually resorted to trying to shut down any mention of the details that refute it. The order is not as simple as "marine life then land life" - marine life goes all the way up the geological column. It is more about "why do we find icthyosaurs and plesioaurs and THEN whales and dolphins" - or even "why do we find land-based animals that have whale-like features BEFORE early whales ?".Berthault's experiment is not even relevant - it's supposedly about geological strata, not fossils and even then it said nothing that wasn't already known.Part of the problem is the repetition of creationist arguments AFTER they have been exposed as fallacious - and this is a good example. Thanks for the demonstration !

quote:

---

This is typical. The evidence offered for mutation's ability to do that was pathetically insufficient, and that's all the support I need. Denial is what is going on on the evo side.

---

And there you have the double standard. WE need to know the rates - YOU don't. You can just assume that you're right.

quote:

---

Also, the super genome is NOT an "assumption," Paul, it is a hypothesis, and something in that direction has yet to be explored thoroughly.

---

If you are taking it as true - as needs to be done to defend your arguments - then you are using it as an assumption. And we have done some exploration - see the discussion of Oetzi for instance. And it came up empty.

quote:

---

So in other words, you guys never could prove and never have proved or verified that mutations do add genetic material at a rate sufficient to replace that which is lost due to variation. You just asserted a theory that mutations do add genetic material sufficient, and this is evo dogma but evidently never backed up, and a non-scientist has come up with an idea that shows the lack of objective verification of a basic theory and dogma held by evo scientists?

​

And yet, you bash her?

---

i.e. since the evidence availabnel to the group is insufficient to resolve the issue we must go with the creationist side. Even if the creationist idea relies on further assumptions. Well why should we ? Why not just admit that Faith failed to make her case and that this argument is a wash.

quote:

---

Bertheault's experiment does deal with fossils as well as sediments, of course, no way to avoid it as the fossils are embedded in the sediments.

---

That's completely wrong. The creatures which became fossilised will have different hydrodynamic properties from the particles of sediment. Berthault's experiments didn't even attempt to address fossils.

quote:

---

Perfectly relevant, and it does show that there is another reason for the fossil ordering that evos don't take into account; and so does pointing out the marine life at the bottom of the column

---

Hydrodynamic sorting doesn't work - and that's the only thing relevant to Berthault that you could appeal to.Pointing out the marine life at the bottom of the column doesn't explain anything - why is it so different from modern marine life. Why the changes in marine life seen up through the column ? Why the changes in land life ? YOu know that that argument utterly fails yet you still claim that it works.