Evidence of a worldwide flood

[ottawak]

Well everyone else seems to be intent on denying that.

Who? Nobody here that I've noticed. But when science discovers that a theory is wrong, it changes or abandons it. That's what happened to YEC some 200 years ago. And wrong theories don't get to come back just because subsequent theories are also wrong.

 

[BPPLEE]

No, you playing fast and loose with words does not count as giving an example. You're posting in a science forum where scientific definitions are the ones used.

So, do you have an example of a theory (scientific definition) changing, or are you just posturing?

"You're posting in a science forum where scientific definitions are the ones used."
For some reason I thought this was Christian Forums

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

"You're posting in a science forum where scientific definitions are the ones used."
For some reason I thought this was Christian Forums

Really? You do not know that the subforum of the website is called Physical and Life Sciences?

 

[ottawak]

"You're posting in a science forum where scientific definitions are the ones used."
For some reason I thought this was Christian Forums

You are posting in a science forum on a Christian website, one in which non=Christians are entitled to participate. Because it is a science form, scientific definitions of various terms used are besr.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That link only gives a paragraph to the subject

Then you have to find the link on the page to look at the next page if there is one. I've never used JSTOR and it seems a rather awful website.

The real point was that this fake prehistoric man was caught by actual anthropologists shortly after the "discovery" of the "specimen" and AV knows it and keeps posting it anyway. I'm sick of his trickster ways.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Really? You do not know that the subforum of the website is called Physical and Life Sciences?

Yeah, but we're in the "Creation and Evolution" section of the Physical and Life Sciences sub-forum. So, I kind of see it as open to all paradigmatic contenders ...

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah, but we're in the "Creation and Evolution" section of the Physical and Life Sciences sub-forum. So, I kind of see it as open to all paradigmatic contenders ...

I don't. If you're going to talk science, you need to at least know how terms are used in science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then you have to find the link on the page to look at the next page if there is one. I've never used JSTOR and it seems a rather awful website.

The real point was that this fake prehistoric man was caught by actual anthropologists shortly after the "discovery" of the "specimen" and AV knows it and keeps posting it anyway. I'm sick of his trickster ways.

I don't think AV is a trickster, although he's probably unfamiliar with any science topics other than those found in the typical MAD magazine.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think AV is a trickster, although he's probably unfamiliar with any science topics other than those found in the typical MAD magazine.

He knows enough to not post about "Nebraska man". He seems to get off stirring the pot, calling scientists names (indirectly), diverting the topic, and drawing attention to himself. He knows exactly what he is doing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't. If you're going to talk science, you need to at least know how terms are used in science.

Yeah, but you see the problem here, right? By importing the term 'Creationism' into a science forum, there's bound to be all sorts of 'Creation Science' that is also referred to by various Christians here, however much of an irony it may seem to be.

The real problem here is, I think, that no one really one to engage the other side in any robust way. Yet, somehow, we all have time to show up here on CF and persist in throwing out 2-cents repeatedly on this or that aspect of the debate. Go figure!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah, but you see the problem here, right? By importing the term 'Creationism' into a science forum, there's bound to be all sorts of 'Creation Science' that is also referred to by various Christians here, however much of an irony it may seem to be.

The real problem here is, I think, that no one really one to engage the other side in any robust way. Yet, somehow, we all have time to show up here on CF and persist in throwing out 2-cents repeatedly on this or that aspect of the debate. Go figure!

You think so, but I've seen more attempts by those who do not accept creationism wanting to engage the creationist camp in a meaningful and robust way, rather than the other.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

He knows enough to not post about "Nebraska man". He seems to get off stirring the pot, calling scientists names (indirectly), diverting the topic, and drawing attention to himself. He knows exactly what he is doing.

Oh, I don't know. I'd have to see which books he's been influenced by and, with time to tell, sit down with him and go through his favorite Bible supporting literature and discuss the nitty gritty of what is said in that literature. Just like I'd do with you atheists. Otherwise, we're just shooting spit-balls at each other ...

 

[ottawak]

Yeah, but we're in the "Creation and Evolution" section of the Physical and Life Sciences sub-forum. So, I kind of see it as open to all paradigmatic contenders ...

True, but when talking about science, scientific terms are best, when known, much better than trying to score rhetorical points by playing games with the popular v. scientific definition.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You think so, but I've seen more attempts by those who do not accept creationism wanting to engage the creationist camp in a meaningful and robust way, rather than the other.

Yeah, that's kind of par for the course since this whole discourse, epsecially where some Christians are concerned, is socially dependent upon exactly whom they trust for information.

For those of us who have been to a university (state or ivy league), we're used to handling all kinds of different points of view and expecting to. By contrast, some of the more fundamental Christians are told by their pastors or their favorite apologists to avoid this kind of diverse inquiry, so they're not willing to engage in the same way. It's just a part of the social psychology that's involved here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Oh, I don't know. I'd have to see which books he's been influenced by and, with time to tell, sit down with him and go through his favorite Bible supporting literature and discuss the nitty gritty of what is said in that literature. Just like I'd do with you atheists. Otherwise, we're just shooting spit-balls at each other ...

This isn't a problem with exigesis or whatever, this is behavior. We have a long history with this guy and his tactics. (Because that's what they are tactics.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

True, but when talking about science, scientific terms are best, when known, much better than trying to score rhetorical points by playing games with the popular v. scientific definition.

Well, I get why they think that way. The misunderstanding about the nature of scientific theory and scientific fact, versus their more colloquial forms, is often present in the fundamentalist attempts at science. I ought to know because I experienced this first hand in a 'Creation Science' class when I attended Bible college years ago. Even I had to take a year (maybe two) to recover from that conceptual debacle.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This isn't a problem with exigesis or whatever, this is behavior. We have a long history with this guy and his tactics. (Because that's what they are tactics.)

Yes, but do you understand what an "Independent Baptist" is, Hans? AV is that kind of Baptist, and there's a social psychology involved there that's fairly rigid and resistant to new or secular information.

 

[BPPLEE]

Yeah, that's kind of par for the course since this whole discourse, epsecially where some Christians are concerned, is socially dependent upon exactly whom they trust for information.

For those of us who have been to a university (state or ivy league), we're used to handling all kinds of different points of view and expecting to. By contrast, some of the more fundamental Christians are told by their pastors or their favorite apologists to avoid this kind of diverse inquiry, so they're not willing to engage in the same way. It's just a part of the social psychology that's involved here.

I mainly see people who are dedicated to their own point of view and want to stick to that no matter which side of the argument they fall on.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mainly see people who are dedicated to their own point of view and want to stick to that no matter which side of the argument they fall on.

Yeah, that can be true, too. I'm not knocking your point here.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, but do you understand what an "Independent Baptist" is, Hans? AV is that kind of Baptist, and there's a social psychology involved there that's fairly rigid and resistant to new or secular information.

Nope. There are lots of kinds of baptists, and I don't care what they believe or why. (How many ways can they split?) I know they rebaptize as a adults (hence the name), but other than that they are just lost in the vast ocean of protestant theology that I don't care about. I know baptists tend to be literalists and fundamentalist, but apparently not all (though IFB *are*).

I don't like characterizing individuals based on some sort of group identity. I don't blame the baptists for this behavior at all. It's all on the disruptive person.