Possible solution for argument recurrence

Today at 03:50 PM PhantomLlama said this in Post #1 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=675353#post675353)

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I doubt if it would have much of an effect. For example, look at how many creationists are ignorance of AIG's list of "arguments we think creationists should not use".

PL... good idea. The Talk Origins FAQ's ( http://www.talkorigins.org ) were designed for that purpose, but creationists refuse to go to them because they see TalkOrigins as "biased" (conveniently). They could hardly have the same complaint about this forum, if they are here in the first place.

Good thought.

Yesterday at 03:50 PM PhantomLlama said this in Post #1

What do you think?

Click to expand...

That might save time and annoyance. How specifically does this work?

Who decides when an argument is falsified?

yes, that is the major problem.

i don't think it should be put in there as a "falsified opinion" as such, but as a collection of different views about a certain subject, and the person can read it all for themselves and make up their own mind... then argue their case if they have anything to add!

that would work. of course the Mod's and Admins would have to do the archiveing, and this would take up a lot of their time. you couldn't just have anyone making the decission, as we have some people with some very weird and not so wonderful beliefs that contradic the bible in many ways, on the foruams. it would have to be done by people who are trusted as being wise christians!

Who decides when an argument is falsified?

Click to expand...

On every other topic? The experts. Generally a decision isn't even necessary, as "falsified" is pretty obvious.

For some reason, when it comes to things like the Age of the Earth, some people won't even accept the obvious.

Today at 08:37 AM Micaiah said this in Post #5

Who decides when an argument is falsified?

Click to expand...

When the other side presents no evidence in opposition.  Examples would be refutations of the creationist claim that the Second Law forbids a decrease in entropy.  Or my thread "Design by Darwinian Selection" that refutes the creationist claim that natural selection can't yield design.  It looks like my thread on Gerald Schroeder would go into the bank.  Or my thread on "Evolution of feathers -- evolution of novelty" that refutes the creationist claim that complex new features can't evolve. The Lunar dust refutation would go there.

Of course, if you prefer we could just call them FAQs and say that no one can bring them up unless they have something new to contribute.

Today at 05:41 AM lucaspa said this in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=677805#post677805)

When the other side presents no evidence in opposition.  Examples would be refutations of the creationist claim that the Second Law forbids a decrease in entropy.  Or my thread "Design by Darwinian Selection" that refutes the creationist claim that natural selection can't yield design.  It looks like my thread on Gerald Schroeder would go into the bank.  Or my thread on "Evolution of feathers -- evolution of novelty" that refutes the creationist claim that complex new features can't evolve. The Lunar dust refutation would go there.

Of course, if you prefer we could just call them FAQs and say that no one can bring them up unless they have something new to contribute.

Click to expand...

Lack of evidence doesn't mean you have proved or disproved something.

exactly. if you say you have "falsified" something, you are taking Gods position imho. It should be between God and a person whether the believe something or not! The SBC falsified the belief that women are allowed to be priests/pastors/elders etc, but it doesn't make them right!
One mans interpretation of the bible may seem utterly obsered to another, yet they may both have possible correct answers, therefore, we should not falsify anyones view unless it blatantly contradicts the Word of God!

I'm not up for it if i am going to let someone else tell me what is right or wrong. You never know what kind of cr*p might get "proved" by someone ho interprets the bible in a certain way...

all sides of the argument is the *only* way forward imho

OLDoMiNiON:

You misinterpret the term "falsify." It's not a subjective term: When an argument is falsified, it ceases to function. It has been, per se, actively disproven. The statement "The earth is flat, and rests on four giant pillars located at each corner" is actively falsified by the fact that we can circle the earth. Hence, that argument is falsified.

"The SBC falsified the belief that women are allowed to be priests/pastors/elders etc, but it doesn't make them right!"

The SBC falsified nothing. The SBC did not show that the concept of women being pastors is inherently invalid (if it was inherently invalid, it would be impossible for a womem to be a pastor; there are women pastors; therefore this concept is not inherently invalid), they simply stated a BELIEF that a normative statement, i.e., women ought not be pastors, is true.

Falsification is about facts. You falsify something by PROVING that it doesn't work. Take the following assertion:

1. If A, then B.
2. B.
3. Therefore, not A.

This is clearly erroneous. It is actively falsifiable.

Unless you want to take the stance that nothing can be falsified (which puts you on a rather unstable moral and theoretical footing), you must accept this line of reasoning.

25th February 2003 at 08:50 PM PhantomLlama said this in Post #1

I apologise if this should not be in this forum itself, but it seemed the most relevant place to attract the attention of people who would be interested.

In my time lurking around these boards I noticed many arguments reappearing time and again such as 'Evolution cannot increase information' and 'Evolution contradicts thermodynamics' appearing repeatedly, and the people who refuted these arguments getting increasingly annoyed. So I thought of a way to solve this problem.

The Argument Bank!

Whenever an argument against evolution or creationism is made and falsified, it is placed in a sticky thread used solely for the purpose of storing these arguments. The first post could be an 'Index' of current stored arguments. If a person tries to use one of the arguments without bringing a new angle to it (such as a different reason why evolution could be seen to contradict thermodynamics) they are just referred to the bank and then ignored. This should stop arguments appearing again and again.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I said this about 2 months ago!!!


No one pays attention to me.

So I must agree with most people here, that it is a good idea...lets make it happen!

Zadok001 - yes indeed! You're 100% correct.

However, how many beliefs have been falsified in these forums? - very few!
Fair enough, falisfy the ones that can be falsified... but for the ones that are too vague, whouldn't it be better to just archive both sides of the argument, and allow people to read it all and make up their own mind?