Evolution: What The Fossils Say

[AV1611VET]

If you were truly as concerned with intellectual honesty as you feign being, you would be angry with all science, not just biology.

Are you saying science isn't qualified to speak for (or against) God?

If so, then why do scientific methodists ask for evidence of Him and His miracles?

 

[Speedwell]

Are you saying science isn't qualified to speak for (or against) God?

Correct, because science is not qualified to speak for (or against) the existence of anything for which no evidence is available.

If so, then why do scientific methodists ask for evidence of Him and His miracles?

Because creationists insist that science speaks for the existence God. If you are going to get in the science game you have to ante up.

 

[HitchSlap]

If so, then why do scientific methodists ask for evidence of Him and His miracles?

This is strange to you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Correct, because science is not qualified to speak for (or against) the existence of anything for which no evidence is available.

You mean no evidence you'll accept as evidence ... correct?

 

[AV1611VET]

This is strange to you?

Actually, no.

The formula goes like this:

1. Request evidence.
2. Receive evidence.
3. Reject evidence.
4. Rinse and repeat.

This is what the empiricists did to Jesus from the time He first went public until His ascension into Heaven until today.

There is nothing new under the sun.

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually, no.

The formula goes like this:

1. Request evidence.
2. Receive evidence.
3. Reject evidence.
4. Rinse and repeat.

This is what the empiricists did to Jesus from the time He first went public until His ascension into Heaven until today.

There is nothing new under the sun.

I think you may have skipped over step two.

 

[HitchSlap]

You mean no evidence you'll accept as evidence ... correct?

Evidence is evidence... it stands on it's own.

 

[Astrophile]

You mean working from naturalistic assumptions, which I am not limited to.

Can you present evidence for creationism without requiring miracles or direct intervention by God?

 

[mark kennedy]

Can you present evidence for creationism without requiring miracles or direct intervention by God?

Creation was and is a miracle of the highest order, don't be ridiculous.

 

[God's Child]

This thread has undergone a clean up. If you noticed a post of yours missing it was removed in the clean up. Please remember to stay on topic of the original post and to not flame. Please keep in mind the forum rules when posting. Thank you and have a great day.

Admin Hat Off

 

[quatona]

Are you saying science isn't qualified to speak for (or against) God?

It´s more like: "God" - as defined by the Abrahmic religions - isn´t qualified to be subject to scientific reasearch.

If so, then why do scientific methodists ask for evidence of Him and His miracles?

This only happens when someone requests science to deal with "God". Consequently they are reminded what´s required for something to become subject to scientific research. And evidence isn´t even the first criterium. It already starts with falisifiability of the hypothesis in question.

 

[AV1611VET]

This only happens when someone requests science to deal with "God". Consequently they are reminded what´s required for something to become subject to scientific research. And evidence isn´t even the first criterium. It already starts with falisifiability of the hypothesis in question.

So SEEKERS are what then?

Seeking a god that can meet all the criteria of the scientific method?

Do you think God is kidding when He says He is invisible?

1 Timothy 1:17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[quatona]

So SEEKERS are what then?

When your case is lost, you are trying to change the subject.

Seeking a god that can meet all the criteria of the scientific method?

No. Telling you that your God concept is - due to its definition - not subject to science.

Do you think God is kidding when He says He is invisible?

No. Exactly my point.

 

[AV1611VET]

When your case is lost, you are trying to change the subject.

Translation: You don't know what it is you are seeking?

Don't feel bad.

In over ten years here, I've never seen a SEEKER answer that question.

And so far, you're no exception.

No. Telling you that your God concept is - due to its definition - not subject to science.

You ... you mean SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE!?

P ... perish the thought!

Who in their right mind would ever come up with an idea like that!?

No. Exactly my point.

Then what's your point?

I'm bragging when I say God is invisible; it sounds like you're complaining though.

 

[quatona]

Translation: You don't know what it is you are seeking?

Inaccurate. What I personally seek wasn´t the topic. What science deals with was the topic.

Don't feel bad.

In over ten years here, I've never seen a SEEKER answer that question.

That´s probably because
a. just like here, the topic weren´t the personal aspirations of the poster you were talking to (and just like here, you ad hoc changed the topic when your initial idea had proven pointless), and
b. because "seeker" is the standard label CF gives us without asking.

And so far, you're no exception.You ... you mean SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE!?

No.

Then what's your point?

I have expressed my point clearly several times. If you´d put more effort in trying to take it in rather than translating it into something else....

I'm bragging when I say God is invisible;

So?

it sounds like you're complaining though.

Sounds aren´t transmitted on a message board. Where did you see me complaining, and about what? It´s more like you are complaining that science doesn´t deal with your God concept.