Frank Robert
Well-Known Member
- Feb 18, 2021
- 2,276
- 1,122
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Soil Management.You should do you think those elements you mentioned are only in humans because that is what you are implying. your statement about elements in humans was illogical
Genesis is literal.Either admit Genesis is hyperbolic, or that Genesis is wrong.
Somewhat incoherent. ? I suspect you're upset, sorry. When you gather yourself, please answer the question: What other modes than science to gain knowledge do you accept?
To reject scientism implies one is open to alternative method to gain knowledge about reality. As a person with some sense, what other methods are you open to?
Science inquires are based on hypotheses which can be supported by observed evidence and predictions they make. The evidence and predictions are independent of any prior assumptions.Science inquiries are based on assumptions: that the entire universe is ordered and that order can be discerned by the human mind.
See above.Validation of those assumptions cannot be given by a series descriptions about some part of nature.
You are confusing science with the scientific method which, put simply, is a systematic way for acquiring knowledgeThe answer to the question, "Why one should accept science as a method of inquiry?, cannot come from within science, otherwise it would beg the question.
Nice word salad.Ironically, this means that the epistemic imperatives professed by naturalists and positivists are, themselves, incapable of being justified through naturalistic means.
If you are saying that science is quiet on the supernatural, no one is disagreeing with you.Relating this observation to the OP, creation is a supernatural event. By definition, naturalistic means are incapable of evidencing the supernatural. As for decreeing what does or can exist, there is nothing in scientific method that forbids anything to exist.
Which is a belief not shared among all Christians.Genesis is literal.
So what? I don't share a lot of beliefs with Christians.Which is a belief not shared among all Christians.
Apparently you're still recovering. Breath deeply and then please answer the question. Or are you really an advocate of scientism but ashamed to admit it?Again, you are just saying things. Scientism is not a method.
Find out what scientism is before trying to talk about it.
? The scientist's predictions are absolutely dependent on the truth of the unproven assumptions. I believe the assumptions are true. That is an act of faith for me and everyone else who makes the same act of faith in science.Science inquires are based on hypotheses which can be supported by observed evidence and predictions they make. The evidence and predictions are independent of any prior assumptions.
No. If the scientist didn’t have faith that experiments can be reproduced, that the human mind is competent to learn, and that somehow his observations can be rationalized, he probably wound not even go into the lab.You are confusing science with the scientific method which, put simply, is a systematic way for acquiring knowledge
What I'm saying is that science will never find God but the scientist can.If you are saying that science is quiet on the supernatural, no one is disagreeing with you.
The assumptions are tested overtime. If they are invalid then the results of experiments will not be as predicted. No faith is required. Indeed faith would corrupt the experiment.? The scientist's predictions are absolutely dependent on the truth of the unproven assumptions. I believe the assumptions are true. That is an act of faith for me and everyone else who makes the same act of faith in science.
And having made those provisional assumptions the scientist finds that experiments can, routinely and consistently, be reproduced; that, demonstrably, almost all human minds can learn; and that her observations fit into rational patterns.No. If the scientist didn’t have faith that experiments can be reproduced, that the human mind is competent to learn, and that somehow his observations can be rationalized, he probably wound not even go into the lab.
Nothing controversial there.What I'm saying is that science will never find God but the scientist can.
No. None.Is there any errors in the KJ bible?
Okay ... red flags all over the place.Literally allegorical.
LOL -- first words out of this mouth: "This is a can of worms."Okay ... red flags all over the place.
This guy is an expert on the Hebrew bible.
It boils down to a gap in knowledge and understanding of the science of biology and evolution.
I've spent a couple decades learning about biology and evolution. This has included taking University courses, reading various evolution textbooks, pop-sci books, published research papers, and other sources. During this time I've developed a particular level of knowledge and conceptual understanding of the process of evolution and the evidence which supports it.
In debating creationists, I find that 99% of the time said creationists don't share that level of knowledge and understanding. Typically, I find the creationist level of understanding of the process of evolution to be... lacking. For example, when creationists speak of evolution as happening to individuals (as opposed to populations) or wonder how organisms could "decide" to evolve (as though it was a conscious process), there is a clear gap in the creationist conceptualization of how the process works.
In debate creationists will argue against those misconceptions. But since those misconceptions are not equivalent to my own conceptual understanding and knowledge, they aren't arguing against the science of evolution as I understand it. They're simply arguing against a strawman of their own creation.
If a creationist wanted to convince me that evolution is false, the first step would be developing an equivalent level of knowledge and understanding. Let's first show that we are talking about the same thing, then we can start having a debate about it.
By not taking that step to equivalent knowledge and understanding, creationists will never bridge that gap. Consequently creationists will never convince me that evolution is false, because creationists are never arguing against my understanding of it.
Addendum
Further to the above, I also observe fundamental gaps in the understanding of the purpose and function of science as a whole. If one rejects science in terms of epistemology, then there is a bigger gap than mere debate over ideas in science. That speaks to a fundamental difference in the philosophical view of knowledge and the nature of the universe.
Who is this "Yahweh" your video is talking about?* media *