[_ Old Earth _] The Christianity In Science

[Rick W]

Sounds good to me.

I'm happy to hear that.

 

[jay55]

I would caution at using youtube as a primary source of information. This is simply because the vast majority of youtube videos do not provide sources by which you can fact check their information.

I could potentially make a video and talk about how Dinosaurs were actually mammals and make up some strange source, and I could probably get a few people to believe me. The point is that when people are open to making any kind of assertion they want within a video that does not have sources, it leave the listener in a disadvantage as they do not know if the observations on which the person is drawing their conclusion is correct.

Hence we often deride Creationists for using youtube so much.

Are you kidding me - this logic is silly. Any medium can be used to deliver either correct or bogus info.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Are you kidding me - this logic is silly. Any medium can be used to deliver either correct or bogus info.

It is easier to cite sources with written communication, since scientists use peer-reviewed journals to publish their findings and not youtube videos.

There's a reason for that you know.

This logic is sound.

 

[jay55]

It is easier to cite sources with written communication, since scientists use peer-reviewed journals to publish their findings and not youtube videos.

There's a reason for that you know.

This logic is sound.

Whether the information provided is spoken, written or otherwise, sources of info can be given. I sat through many lectures where information was provided verbally. To write off information because it is provided via video is short sighted.

 

[Gary]

It is easier to cite sources with written communication, since scientists use peer-reviewed journals to publish their findings and not youtube videos.

There's a reason for that you know.

What is it?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Whether the information provided is spoken, written or otherwise, sources of info can be given. I sat through many lectures where information was provided verbally. To write off information because it is provided via video is short sighted.

Yet, not a single Creationist video I have seen posted here contains links to sources to validate their observations and conclusions.

They are nothing but assertions, that one must assume the honesty of the one presenting it.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

What is it?

It is a format that is open to review, and it is a format that is easily citable, and of course it is a format where it easy to CITE one's sources.

Creationists I have seen on youtube aren't so big on citing where they get their information from.

 

[jasonc]

Yet, not a single Creationist video I have seen posted here contains links to sources to validate their observations and conclusions.

They are nothing but assertions, that one must assume the honesty of the one presenting it.

we do the same with this Christian moniker being assigned yes or no. most of the time the issues of the heart come out and we see but sometimes we don't and wonder. thefore one must until shown its honest. not directed at you. I have talked to one member here a lot one the phone and another helped me. so I do know that some are real here. thus is the nature of the internet and I understand the issue with you tube and so forth for scientific papers. but this is a debate forum not a college class or science forum for postulation of theories.

if you posted stuff about cars and said this is what works on the car and why? should I say where is you automotive service excellence in that field? we all do that with talking to each other. I could go into cars and post stuff in the right forum on what parts do what they do and why they fail. I have the knowledge but some that don't have the schooling could teach me things. I have learned from those that are certified and from those that weren't.

 

[jay55]

Yet, not a single Creationist video I have seen posted here contains links to sources to validate their observations and conclusions.

They are nothing but assertions, that one must assume the honesty of the one presenting it.

And is there a need for there to be sources that validate the quoted sources, and sources that validate those etc etc. Where would that end pray tell. Can anyone with an area of expertise/knowledge share their information without you denying its validity.

 

[Gary]

Creationists I have seen on youtube aren't so big on citing where they get their information from.

The video you posted defending your position didn't cite any references either. And if actually watched those Creationists videos you would notice that the information you're searching for is actually in the video itself.

The complaint has no merit.

 

[Rick W]

There will ALWAYS be something wrong with anything presented, no matter how it's presented or who presents it concerning an opposing view. That goes for all sides.
Two opposing attorneys will ALWAYS attempt to degrade, downplay or nullify the other's evidence.

/Hey, you're right. I didn't see that. My client is guilty. Judge, I suggest you pronounce sentence immediately and save us all a lot of time. :nod

Yeah, right

 

[Doulos Iesou]

And is there a need for there to be sources that validate the quoted sources, and sources that validate those etc etc. Where would that end pray tell. Can anyone with an area of expertise/knowledge share their information without you denying its validity.

There are such things as original sources, such as the scientific articles that present the evidence within their article. These articles are then subject to peer-review, in which other scientists can disprove their findings.

So I disagree.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The video you posted defending your position didn't cite any references either.

Which video?

And if actually watched those Creationists videos you would notice that the information you're searching for is actually in the video itself.

Unfortunately I did watch some. However, they do not demonstrate where they get their information from. They don't post anything for you to fact check the observations for you to check to see if it matches what they are presenting. Rather it is nothing but assertions.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

There will ALWAYS be something wrong with anything presented, no matter how it's presented or who presents it concerning an opposing view. That goes for all sides.
Two opposing attorneys will ALWAYS attempt to degrade, downplay or nullify the other's evidence.

/Hey, you're right. I didn't see that. My client is guilty. Judge, I suggest you pronounce sentence immediately and save us all a lot of time. :nod

Yeah, right

If anyone has problems with scientific articles, then they are welcome to comment on the errors.

In fact, if you published a scientific article for peer-review criticizing evolution, then you would be the first one to ever do this.

Whose first?

 

[Gary]

Unfortunately I did watch some. However, they do not demonstrate where they get their information from. They don't post anything for you to fact check the observations for you to check to see if it matches what they are presenting. Rather it is nothing but assertions.

Do you not understand how to look for information on the internet?

 

[jay55]

There are such things as original sources, such as the scientific articles that present the evidence within their article. These articles are then subject to peer-review, in which other scientists can disprove their findings.

So I disagree.

What constitutes an original source? The first person/group that puts forward an new idea/thought/theory?

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

1 Corinthians 4:6;
"do not think beyond what is written".
Paul, of course, is talking about Scripture.
The Corinthian church was following this one and following that one, and the church was not unified.
If we stray from the written word and follow new ideas, it separates us as a group of believers.
Is it really important?
Does it glorify God?
Will we draw closer to God?
Will it edify the group of believers?
We are told not to argue over trivial matters.
A sign of maturity as a Christian is that we will not argue over trivial matters.
And what are trivial matters?
Anything that does not directly affect our salvation doctrine.

So if one wants to talk about something other than what is written in the Word, our answer should be with Scripture, one way or the other.
Otherwise, it is no longer to the glory of God.
And why else are we here?

 

[Rick W]

If anyone has problems with scientific articles, then they are welcome to comment on the errors.

In fact, if you published a scientific article for peer-review criticizing evolution, then you would be the first one to ever do this.

Whose first?

Would a peer-reviewed article consider a scripture-based conclusion as valid?

 

[jasonc]

http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Would a peer-reviewed article consider a scripture-based conclusion as valid?

No, not even a Christian scientist would view that as a valid basis.

1. The Bible is not a scientific book, it is a theological book.
2. Scientists practice methodological naturalism, and therefore cannot comment on the metaphysical and supernatural.