Originally posted by twhitehead
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.
Dear twitehead,
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