Spirituality
21 Jan 12
22 Jan 12
Originally posted by CalJustYet every single creationist on this site is not knowledgeable in science, so no, it is not FACT by your definition.
This is a FACT. It can be verified by anybody knowledgable in the science.
Almost all arguments we have with creationists here are arguments about things that scientists would call fact, but creationists lack the scientific education or knowledge to accept it as fact and thus dispute the findings. In some cases they prove to be dishonest in that they are aware of the science, but deliberately deny it because that would be admitting a flaw in their religion. But in other cases, they simply do not know the science and would rather take their religions word for it over that of a scientist.
22 Jan 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadRight you are.
Yet every single creationist on this site is not knowledgeable in science, so no, it is not FACT by your definition.
Almost all arguments we have with creationists here are arguments about things that scientists would call fact, but creationists lack the scientific education or knowledge to accept it as fact and thus dispute the findings. In some cases t ...[text shortened]... not know the science and would rather take their religions word for it over that of a scientist.
There are creationists who define "science " as equal to "knowledge". I.e. their knowledge. Any science telling against their creationism are just lies. And they say this without even little smile. They certainly believe that.
They are sooo wrong.
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadDear twitehead,
Yet every single creationist on this site is not knowledgeable in science, so no, it is not FACT by your definition.
Almost all arguments we have with creationists here are arguments about things that scientists would call fact, but creationists lack the scientific education or knowledge to accept it as fact and thus dispute the findings. In some cases t ...[text shortened]... not know the science and would rather take their religions word for it over that of a scientist.
Why do I get the feeling that you disagree out of principle as a knee-jerk reaction?
Even when we demonstrably do NOT disagree about something?
😛
Your description of debates on RHP between E and C is exactly why I started this thread - not as an argument but as a discussion piece.
Do you think I understand molecular science or how to splice genes? I don't! But I accept it as fact because it is peer reviewed, etc.
If someone else does NOT accept something as a fact (as you suggest) then, of course, THAT would become the subject of the debate (or should). And one could explore why one side says it is and another not.
If I state it is a FACT that the moon is made of cream cheese, somebody could produce a moon rock and prove me wrong. If there is no moon rock, it remains my OPINION, and no better or worse than yours. If we debate opinions, then that would be a different kind of debate from ascertaining what is or is not a fact.
I think this subject is now exhausted - at least I am!
My purpose in this thread was not to be controversial but to merely point out that a debate could be more useful if it is clear to both parties that we are:
1 Talking about facts that we both agree with but interpret differently
2 Dispute the "facts" and hence need to ascertain whose "facts" are correct (if that is possible. If it is not - no debate!)
3 Merely pitting my opinion against yours.
(There may be other situations - this list is not necessarily exhaustive.)
Where I agree with you - and you with me, in your last post - is that most E/C debates are exteremely non-productive because we don't know exactly WHAT is being debated, and, yes, creationists tend to approach them highly emotionally and subjectively rather than logically and systematically.
In peace,
CJ signing out
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by CalJustI disagree with things I disagree with. Simple as that. I am not saying you are all wrong, but I do think you are painting as black and white an issue that is far from black and white.
Why do I get the feeling that you disagree out of principle as a knee-jerk reaction?
Do you think I understand molecular science or how to splice genes? I don't! But I accept it as fact because it is peer reviewed, etc.
Which seems to contradict your definition of 'fact'. Clearly your facts are not personally verifiable.
If someone else does NOT accept something as a fact (as you suggest) then, of course, THAT would become the subject of the debate (or should). And one could explore why one side says it is and another not.
But does the failure of one party to accept something as fact instantaneously make it 'opinion' as your OP suggests? Or are your definitions breaking down somewhat?
If I state it is a FACT that the moon is made of cream cheese, somebody could produce a moon rock and prove me wrong. If there is no moon rock, it remains my OPINION, and no better or worse than yours.
I disagree. I should not have to produce a moon rock before my opinion that the moon is not made of cream cheese is better than yours. I suspect that neither of us will ever see a moon rock.
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by sonhouseWell one person's facts that cannot be verfied are other's people's opinions.
The problem is some people say a certain thing is a fact and others say it's opinion, like young earthers saying the universe is 6000 years old and calling it a fact and calling others idiots for not accepting that 'fact'. There are certainly verifiable facts like if you dive into water you or your clothes will get wet, then there are concepts that some peo ...[text shortened]... n, to some people that is a fact to others a myth.
There is no way to argue such stances.
I prefer to use the words faith and beliefs when I cannot prove my statements
one way or another. You do not see me calling things facts that cannot be
proven, yet as it has been posted here others are more than willing to call
things that cannot be verfied facts.
Kelly
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by CalJust"A fact (by my definition, twhitehead) is independently verifiable. For example, Carbon dating is generally agreed to be a scietifically verifyable technique. If C dating gives an object a lifetime of, say 30 000 +- 2000 years, then that is a fact. Young earthers will have to explain it away somehow, if they want to stay below 6000, and some have done so by claiming the rate of radiation decay has changed, or that time has warped, or whatever. That then is their explanation (or opinion) about how to explain the facts."
I think this response really demonstrates what I mean, thanks sonhouse.
A fact (by my definition, twhitehead) is independently verifiable. For example, Carbon dating is generally agreed to be a scietifically verifyable technique. If C dating gives an object a lifetime of, say 30 000 +- 2000 years, then that is a fact. Young earthers will have to explain i ...[text shortened]... inion and this is why I hold it, one could argue more sensibly.
Does this make sense?
I agree that the technique shows what it shows, but to call it a fact no.
You can say according to this test the date is, but to say the date is a fact, no.
If you want to bring in two techniques that point to the same span of time,
that is a stronger statement, but it is still according to these two techniques
and each technique are stand alone statements that have to be looked at.
If there are other techniques that give different dates, do they also always
get acknowledged to weaken the statements on dates? Techniques come
and go which ones are right are only based upon the truth which may not
always line up with that we call facts at times.
Kelly
23 Jan 12
Originally posted by KellyJayEven proof may be disputed. What I consider proven, you may not. Until I can explain my reasoning to you and have given you sufficient evidence to support the reasoning, you may validly say it is not proven as far as you are concerned.
You do not see me calling things facts that cannot be
proven, yet as it has been posted here others are more than willing to call
things that cannot be verfied facts.
Kelly
But I don't find it useful to divide everything into 'facts', 'faith', 'belief', 'opinion' etc. If find you often use those categories to try and make it seem like everything in one category is equal. I tend to disagree with such a view. Just because we don't both agree on the proof of a given proposition, does not mean it can be readily dismissed as 'faith' or 'belief' and relegated to the same pile as the fanciful delusions of a drug addict.