Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Evolutionary debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Cabal" data-source="post: 54194056" data-attributes="member: 196773"><p>Right. Except repeatability is par for the course with science and helps to reduce the likelihood of that influence affecting the collective conclusions.</p><p> </p><p>Creationism, however, makes no empirically repeatable observations, and conducts no experiments. Therefore, it is a lot easier for charlatans to infiltrate.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No idea. How many constitutionally-violating earmarks are made each year?</p><p> </p><p>You'd have to ask the ACLU - and from what I know of them, they're pretty consistent.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>No arguments here.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>It's not a question of deciding it doesn't exist and then building the theory from there. It's just not necessary to formulating a full explanation of how naturalistic mechanisms work. </p><p> </p><p>I'm an atomic physicist, and a Christian - but I use the same science as my colleagues. When my laser systems go wonky and can't be retuned but for hours of fiddling with the control box, I don't blame it on demons or whatever - it's just not necessary.</p><p> </p><p>I am curious to know what you think of my previous statement though - if all natural mechanisms can be described without the need to explicitly include God, but if we believe He exists, then presumably He made the mechanisms that way? I consider it congruent with the notion that He expects us to choose to follow Him, not have science prove that He exists.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Cabal, post: 54194056, member: 196773"] Right. Except repeatability is par for the course with science and helps to reduce the likelihood of that influence affecting the collective conclusions. Creationism, however, makes no empirically repeatable observations, and conducts no experiments. Therefore, it is a lot easier for charlatans to infiltrate. No idea. How many constitutionally-violating earmarks are made each year? You'd have to ask the ACLU - and from what I know of them, they're pretty consistent. No arguments here. It's not a question of deciding it doesn't exist and then building the theory from there. It's just not necessary to formulating a full explanation of how naturalistic mechanisms work. I'm an atomic physicist, and a Christian - but I use the same science as my colleagues. When my laser systems go wonky and can't be retuned but for hours of fiddling with the control box, I don't blame it on demons or whatever - it's just not necessary. I am curious to know what you think of my previous statement though - if all natural mechanisms can be described without the need to explicitly include God, but if we believe He exists, then presumably He made the mechanisms that way? I consider it congruent with the notion that He expects us to choose to follow Him, not have science prove that He exists. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Evolutionary debate
Top
Bottom