Faith's Participation in EvC

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.

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

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

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.

quote:

---

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 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.

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.....

Meme's are off topic here RickJB, Thanks.

Flood geology is off topic here, Rev. Thanks.

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I get the feeling that we are about to see some punctuation to the equilibrium here at EvC.

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

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.