|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith's Participation in EvC | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3846 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Here is an example, Faith, of how you end up in predicaments like the one that is the subject of this board.
Faith: the super genome is NOT an "assumption," Paul, it is a hypothesis, and something in that direction has yet to be explored thoroughly. This statement is not true. The hypothesis has yet to be explored thoroughly by you. It has been explored very thoroughly by others. It stands falsified by physical evidence. You know this. The news was delivered to you personally by an immediate member of Adam and Eve's family. Oetzi the Iceman. Oetzi is a Bronze-Age mummy dating from the time you say Adam lived. The find provided a treasure trove of genetic data--human, zoological and botanical. And not one super-enriched genome in the lot. Your hypothesis has failed to meet the key test of a valid theory: the ability to predict outcomes. Here's the thread where you got the news from Oetzi. It's a short one:
Looking for the super-genome--and it ain't been found Upon learning of the remains of an actual person from the age of Adam, you immediately denied the age of the find. But early in the going you were at least Mensch enough to see the implications and say this:
quote: A glimpse of reality being considered. Something in your outlook resembling uncertainty, leaving a question open. Very healthy, very human. Brava. But only a glimpse. After that you kicked up a flurry of Silly Sand and disappeared. Here's my favorite moment of denial:
quote: You suggest here that Oetzi the Iceman is really more credible as a contemporary of Mozart than as a man from the Bronze Age. This, in a thread where you take the scientists to task for not considering the evidence! Apparently we need more radiocarbon tests on Oetzi's riding coat, powdered wig, and silk stockings... Even more strange is your insistence that physical evidence offers 'no way to know' anything. You may believe that, but the premise is (to put it mildly) not a scientific one. Another Kodak moment: your decree that dating methods are worthless, then your admission in the next breath that you lack any competence to say this.
quote: A bit of a bust, rhetorically as well as rationally. Equinox gave a good description of the dating methods and why in this case the date evidence is particularly strong. You had already conceded the point, though, as you say above. You haven't mentioned Oetzi since. And now you're back to old habits. You trot out your pet idea as if nothing ever happened to it and attribute your own lack of investigation to others:
Faith: it is a hypothesis, and something in that direction has yet to be explored thoroughly. Why are you trying to bury Oetzi again? He's just the messenger. That's no way to treat a guy you really do know from Adam. You don't have to like the news he delivered. But you said it yourself: 'It could of course be wrong and need rethinking.' Your super-genome hypothesis was testable. Today it stands falsified by all the relevant physical evidence. _ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Touchup. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Title. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5239 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
Iano writes: The evidence is available to everybody without favoring this or that philosophy or belief. Exactly. However you seem to forget that evolution has arisen BECAUSE of this, not in spite of it. All the evidence across many fields as studied by thousands of different scientists of varying faiths points to evolution. These guys didn't gather in a room as part of an anti-YEC conspiracy and pick the theory out of a hat. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5239 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
GDR writes: My point is that Atheists on this forum don't get challenged when they try to make their arguments for first cause scientific, in the same way that Creationists or even Theists do. Which arguments would those be? Also, please don't forget that this board is frequented by scientists who identify themselves as christians, so be careful not to make a black and white distinction. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17907 Joined: Member Rating: 7.2 |
quote: Newton certainly didn't. He spent a lot of time with alchemy. And the Flood is just as much a casualty of the scientific method as astrology. If you are trying to make special exceptions for dogmas that you happen to beleive then have the honesty to say so - or to at least admit that you want ANY dogma to be accepted as valid in science - whether it be alchemical beliefs, astrology or the Flat Earth.
quote: Yes, they are allowed to do that if they can do so honestly and scientifically. That is not in dispute. The fact is that they have failed. We have the example of the order in the fossil record raised here - empirical evidence that contradicts the flood. According to Faith we should just accept the lame explanation that she likes (because it assuems the Flood, not because it is any good at explaining the evidence) and ignore all the evidence that doesn't fit. That isn't science. That's not even good apologetics. And they are certainly not allowed to declare the Flood as fact in a scientific discussion - when they DON'T have a valid empirical case And THAT is what Faith has been doing. That's the sort of behaviour that triggered Percy's concerns.
quote: Well it isn't science until they actually have a decent case. And they don't. Again we come back to the Flat Earthers and the Alchemists and all the rest. According to you, so long as they are attempting to make an empirical case we've got to call it science and accept their views as valid. Well I call BS on that. All the crap which has been thoroughly refuted like the Flat Earth, Astrology and Flood Geology isn't entitled to be called science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Adminnemooseus writes: It seems that Faith does indeed disagree with evolutionary fact and theory on a purely faith basis. But then she also goes on profess that the science is bad, without much if any scientific argument on why and how the science is bad. In the process, she clutters up a lot of science oriented topics with her "eloquent bs". This is well put, and I'd like to elaborate on this to the general community. Faith is well within her rights and the Forum Guidelines to say that, for example, the flood happened because she has faith in God's word, and God's word says it happened. But in the science forums she can't say the science is wrong just because God says so. In the science forums one has to advance a scientific argument for a position, not a faith-based argument. EvC Forum exists to examine creationism's claim that it is as much science as evolution, and that at a minimum it deserves a place alongside evolution in the classroom. This requires making scientific arguments, which is what most of the creationist literature in books and on the web claims to do. Faith is not a traditional creationist in that she isn't pushing for creationism to be taught in public schools, and she sees no need for making a scientific case for creationism. She believes that God's word is sufficient for concluding creationism's stance is correct. Faith is more than welcome to argue this position here at this forum. But EvC Forum does have topics and forums and categories of forums. Faith-based approaches are not permitted in the science forums. Claims that a faith-based approach is valid science can be discussed in the [forum=-11] forum, with the emphasis on "discussed". Declarations that certain premises must be accepted and can't be discussed is not a valid position at a discussion board. If Faith doesn't accept this then she is more than welcome to open a thread to discuss why her underlying premises must be accepted, again with the emphasis on "discuss", but unless her arguments in that thread carry the day she cannot carry this position into other science threads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, ancient post.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1693 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
But EvC Forum does have topics and forums and categories of forums. Faith-based approaches are not permitted in the science forums. Claims that a faith-based approach is valid science can be discussed in the Is It Science? forum, with the emphasis on "discussed". Declarations that certain premises must be accepted and can't be discussed is not a valid position at a discussion board. If Faith doesn't accept this then she is more than welcome to open a thread to discuss why her underlying premises must be accepted, again with the emphasis on "discuss", but unless her arguments in that thread carry the day she cannot carry this position into other science threads. What thread do you have in mind, Percy? Seems to me that OP about faith based science can ONLY be answered as I answered it. It's not a science thread at all, really, it's a Statement-of-Position thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
GDR writes: My point is that Atheists on this forum don't get challenged when they try to make their arguments for first cause scientific, in the same way that Creationists or even Theists do.RickJB writes: Which arguments would those be? Also, please don't forget that this board is frequented by scientists who identify themselves as christians, so be careful not to make a black and white distinction. Discussions of things like Dawkins' theory of "memes" are treated as being scientific, whereas "the god of the gaps' theory isn't. "Memes" is to Atheism what "the god of the gaps" is to Theism. Neither is scientific no matter how you dress it up. Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
Faith writes: What thread do you have in mind, Percy? Seems to me that OP about faith based science can ONLY be answered as I answered it. It's not a science thread at all, really, it's a Statement-of-Position thread. Of course the thread begins with a statement of position. In a debate a position is stated, and one side takes the pro, the other the con. Could we take the level of discussion up a notch? It shouldn't have to be explained what a debate is. Is your goal to reach a satisfactory resolution or to be as obtuse as possible? Faith, if you have any beliefs or positions that you don't feel are open for discussion, then don't discuss them. But don't keep bringing them up, either. This is a discussion board. You shouldn't be introducing positions into discussions that in your opinion are off-limits for discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4376 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
Let's see:
Should Faith be allowed to carry on posting? Yes. That's a surprising answer from you - why do you say that? Because she's one of the best examples of how morally and intellectually bankrupt the creationist position is. The more posts she makes, the more there are to link to for the unconvinced (waste of time appealing to those convinced on both sides). So she's overall a good presence on the board? Not really - the problem with her imput is that every thread she appears on degrades into another thread about faith herself and her belief, any real debate comes out of the window. she's like a blackhole that sucks in any passing light - of course she has not got that way on her own, everyone her has helped to create that blackhole. 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. So what's the answer? There isn't one - Faith loves the attention (for whatever reason) too much to cut her posting down to a sensible manageable number of threads - she's an addict, she loves the feel of her hairshirt and her position as number one christian martyr on the boards. This issue will not be settled by this thread or any other threads on the matter. But many people have said her debating has gone a lot better since she first got here? Not really - the rhetoric and her grasp of debating tactics have got significantly better but she has not shifted one inch in her outlook and willingness to listen (she's not willing). Her position on day 1 was that the bible is true because the bible says it's true (she's say this is an incorrect reading of her position - it's not) and therefore any evidence that suggests differently is incorrect. I've seen the same points explained to her over and over for the last few years - I've never seen any evidence that she is even willing to listen to what she is told - if it does not fit 100% with the bible - it's wrong and to be discarded. What does this mean for debate in the science forums? It means that debate is actually impossible - she is constantly remained that the science forums are for science - it never happens, it all leads straight back to the bible. Forgetting her actual position for a minute, why is she unable to follow the rules in that forum? I would suggest either she has mental or learning difficulties and is unable to grasp it or she grasps it but because she knows that she supplies most of the creationist posts on the boards feels she is untouchable. Moreover, it's a wonderful forum to play into her addiction, she knows the response her posts are going to get and it makes that hairshirt itch in that delightful manner. Many fundies seem to get an almost sexual thrill from thinking they are being hounded and persecuted - they seem to seek it out like Faith does. Edited by CK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 2189 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
If ever there were a clear cut case of an itch being scratched then this must rank right up there. You have been remarkably silent on this thread now that I think of it. Beavering away perfecting this gem no doubt
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9011 From: Canada Joined: |
And what exactly was in error in what CK posted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4376 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
actually I have been silent fullstop - I'm too busy in the real world to do much more than lurk.
you only get those odd posts because it kills deadtime on the train or right at the moment on the bus (off for a drink) Edited by CK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3846 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
CK writes:
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. I'm glad you mentioned this, CK. The first thing that impressed me about this forum was the number of people with science expertise who share it, gratis. They do this even for those who profoundly misunderstand science, are largely ignorant of its findings, and who have been taught to scorn the work they do not understand. Most scientists take a different attitude. They do their research, share their findings with those they know to be interested, and let the rest stay ignorant. They take the attitude that the fundamentalist mind is like soup in a bad restaurant. It's best to leave it unstirred. We are fortunate to have scientists here who are more generous, and patient. They share the knowledge they have in the spirit that it really does belong to everyone. They know individuals have been badly taught and misinformed. They do what they can. I am learning a lot from our scientists. We owe them our gratitude. We need to keep this resource at EvC. I don't think we face the choice at the moment, but if it ever came about that we had to choose between those who share real information over people and those who act out martyr fantasies, I hope we won't hesistate to throw the martyrs overboard. You have to keep the people who bring in the resources. And the martyrs won't mind the treatment. Rejection is their raison d'etre anyway. We don't face this choice now, apparently. Those who bring in resources seem willing to tolerate a few energy sinks. People here seem to be saying that firm regulation of the science boards is in order to keep that department functioning. As for the rest, as I say, Faith's act is so monotonous that it becomes part of the furniture after a while. People figure it out. I do request this: if someone is just going to repeat bare assertions over and over, on any thread, I hope Admins will be firm about getting them to engage in real debate or pull the plug. One of the strengths of the e-mail format is that everyone gets their say. You can't filibuster or shout anyone down on e-mail. But EvC does have overall posting limits on threads. Burning up the count with multiple posts that say the same thing is one way to effect a filibuster. We need to be attentive to this abuse of the system. _ Edited by Archer Opterix, : Concision. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5239 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
GDR writes: Discussions of things like Dawkins' theory of "memes" are treated as being scientific, whereas "the god of the gaps' theory isn't. 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024