Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,275 Year: 5,532/9,624 Month: 557/323 Week: 54/143 Day: 16/11 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Impossibility Of The Flood
Percy
Member
Posts: 22704
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 30 of 100 (464429)
04-25-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 1:17 PM


Bluejay writes:
Baumgardner, Vardiman, Humphreys, Snelling, Austin and Wise wrote this. Note that the conclusion isn't "God made the earth," but "the flood accounts for the evidence."
Rrhain knows this. His central point is that they're just hiding the God connection behind a number of intermediate steps. If you ask the question, "Where does the flood hypothesis come from?" you quickly get to the heart of the matter.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 1:17 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 3:00 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22704
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 32 of 100 (464444)
04-25-2008 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 3:00 PM


Creationist "scientific" papers are some of the intermediate steps hiding the God connection. That's why "scientific" is in quotes. The papers provide a scientific smokescreen to obscure what are inherently religious ideas.
So when you say:
They still believe it's all God, but they're not trying to prove that through the research.
There are two ways to respond to this.
One is that that's exactly what they're trying to prove through their "research", that God exists. Their "research" is just one of the intermediate steps on the way to proving God.
The other less appealing response is that creationist researchers know their research cannot prove God exists, but they do it anyway because it helps hide the God connection. I don't adhere to this view. I think creationists are very sincere about their "research".
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 3:00 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 4:13 PM Percy has replied
 Message 34 by Zucadragon, posted 04-25-2008 5:12 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22704
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 37 of 100 (464508)
04-26-2008 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Blue Jay
04-25-2008 4:13 PM


Bluejay writes:
I'm trying to say that I think ID involves more than just a "scientific" way to God: I think they want to take the Flood -> Bible step via "science," and the "Bible -> God" step via religion.
Sure, ideally they'd love that, but it's still Flood=>Bible=>God, with the Bible just an intermediate step. As Rrhain's reply to your Message 29 makes clear, they don't even hide their true intent at all well, although some do it better than others. But are you really going to let the fact that some creationists do an absolutely excellent job of hiding their intent convince you that proving their religion isn't their intent? Few people are so perverse as to carry on for decades in the service of a science that has no scientific evidence whatsoever and that never rewards them with results or progress, all the while causing them to have to engage in significant numbers of dissemblings and and misrepresentations (including to themselves), except in the service of their religion.
There is no way to avoid the fact that creationists are completely caught up in their own chimerical goal of proving that where science contradicts their interpretation of the Bible, science is wrong. Such sincerity cannot be faked. I am very fond of quoting what Steven Weinberg (Nobel prize winning scientist) is purported to have said: "Good people will do good, and evil people will do evil. But for good people to do evil, that takes religion."
But I also imagine that it is not uncommon for sincere creationist researchers to turn their eyes occasionally upward and ask, "If you are not a jester God, why are you making the evidence so damn difficult to deal with?"
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Blue Jay, posted 04-25-2008 4:13 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22704
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 39 of 100 (464563)
04-27-2008 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Blue Jay
04-26-2008 5:29 PM


Bluejay writes:
They didn't say "these results prove God," they didn't mean to say "these results prove God," and I don't think they believe they could ever prove God.
Now I'm beginning to wonder if you're just making a semantic argument. I think most sincere Christians would say you can't prove God, and they would probably quote passages from the Bible in support, like "Thou shall not test the Lord thy God." When we say "prove God" in this thread, we just mean prove that their religion is correct.
For the most part, creationists are not actually seeking scientific evidence of God, God under a microscope or in front of a telescope as it were (although some are obviously seeking scientific evidence of God, but we don't need to consider them in this discussion). They're more than happy to just prove the Bible correct, meaning that all the Bible's statements relating to God are also correct.
That's right... the Bible. Isn't that what I've been arguing: they're trying to prove the Bible is right about the Flood? How does quoting the Bible show that they're trying to prove God, and show that they're not trying to just prove the Bible?
The Bible says, "In the beginning God..." If you prove the Bible, you've done as much as most creationists feel necessary in proving God. Proving the Bible is just an intermediate step.
If I were one of a couple hundred scientists working to prove string theory (where by prove I of course mean find a successful test), and the steps to that proof are of the form A=>B=>...=>Y=>Z, and I'm working on the P=>Q portion, how am I not trying to prove string theory?
Nothing in what you've said or quoted refutes my argument.
I know you're addressing Rrhain here, but he and I are making very similar arguments, so I can't help noting that Ray Martinez has said this many times.
Creationists are believers trying to prove their beliefs. The strength and sincerity of their belief causes them to turn science on its head and make research an exercise in finding excuses instead of following evidence. They're no different from all the various ESP, UFOs, etc., believer-researchers. They're only engaging in decades of fruitless research because they already believe the phenomenon is a reality and are only seeking reality's confirmation. But though reality is an uncooperative partner, its reluctance to provide that confirmation will never be a discouragement.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
Edited by Percy, : Grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Blue Jay, posted 04-26-2008 5:29 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Blue Jay, posted 04-28-2008 1:08 PM Percy 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