4004 Bc

[Gracchus]

I believe the term is uniformitarianism --- as opposed to catastrophism.

To some people, the term "uniformitarianism" implied that there were no sudden catastrophes. Most scientists now prefer the term "actualism", that is to say events in the past came about by the same processes that we observe today. Some of those processes may be catastrophic: vulcanism, meteoric and cometary impacts, etc.
In this forum, dad, with his "split universe", denies this. Of course, he is unable to provide evidence for this odd change of state.

But science has been remarkably successful in explaining phenomena without recourse to miracles or magic. The only explanation dad and AV1611VET have is, "Goddidit."

 

[dad]

To some people, the term "uniformitarianism" implied that there were no sudden catastrophes. Most scientists now prefer the term "actualism", that is to say events in the past came about by the same processes that we observe today. Some of those processes may be catastrophic: vulcanism, meteoric and cometary impacts, etc.
In this forum, dad, with his "split universe", denies this. Of course, he is unable to provide evidence for this odd change of state.

But science has been remarkably successful in explaining phenomena without recourse to miracles or magic. The only explanation dad and AV1611VET have is, "Goddidit."

The interesting part of actualism is that they were not actually there, and do not actually know! It assumes that the past, actually was like the present, actually for no reason, and with actuallly no proof at all! The in box explanations, based, actually, on the same things, maust have agreement. Even though, they often toss around tens of millions of imaginary years as a comfortable margin of imaginary error!! What a scream, actually. I do not deny that they have no proof for a same state past. They don't, actually.

 

[dad]

That would be chihuahua, and its yappings would be a n apt comparison to the sort of "debate" you could supply.

Thanks for the spell check. I thought I would leave something up to you, since I have never seen you address an issue in any other way but a predictable yapping. By the way, an is spelled an, nor 'a n' You can say what you want, I deal with what is on the table. So no need to deal with you yet, never saw you put anything there. As much as you might want to cheerlead those knights of the defeated cases you seem to think could fare better than little dags in a debate where I haull them out of the box.

"I have no religious bias for science!"

You really arent much for self knowledge are you?

If man depended on the knowedge in my self, or your self, we would be doomed. Guess that is why I look to God, and so called science dreams stuff up!

I cant quite figure why you find it fun to think you are capable of "cutting it down to size"....you are like a kid imagining that the chalkboard covered with strange markings at a math convention is all nonsense, and you can prove it is not math...easy! there are no numbers! Wow did I cut THEM professors down to size! And look they wont debate me! Proves I am right.

Becaise the size of physical only present science is determined by the length, and scope, and breadth of this universe state we know, and wherin science was spawned. Of course.

ps there is no such thing as a "professor of evolution". So I guess you are right that you could eat one for breakfast.... in your imagination, where the "professor of evolution" is also found.

Yes, there is, they come in many flavors. And the old age evolution fables are applied in every field, almost. Stellar evolution, the pond stories, and the sequel to the pond stories, abiogenisis...geology, and, of course, the paleo fraud gang. Etc.

 

[dad]

Pearls before swine?

That depends on what a swine thinks is a pearl. And what someone in a right mind thinks, and what the evidence and proofs happen to be.

 

[dad]

So, let me get this straight. If science says that your fallible interpretation of scripture is wrong, then it automatically becomes religion. Is that correct?

No. Science cannot say my interpretation is wrong! All it says, and tries to say is that the present is the key to the future and past universe state. But it cannot know or prove that. That is why it matters not what it says about things outside it's realm. Whether it realizes the size of it's realm or not.

 

[AV1611VET]

To some people, the term "uniformitarianism" implied that there were no sudden catastrophes.

I understand.

My beef with uniformitarianism is that it filters out miracles.

God has done some things to this earth that has changed its topography and climatology, and I've seen scientists try and attribute this to natural causes --- such as asteroid collisions --- and I don't accept it.

In my earlier years, I saw a scientist's rendition of how the Ten Plagues of Egypt could have occurred, and I thought it was laughable.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I understand.

My beef with uniformitarianism is that it filters out miracles.

That's not uniformitarianism; that's methodological naturalism, the rule where you can never just give up and say "I dunno, maybe it wuz magic". You still have to try and find the real answer.

Once upon a time, things like epilepsy and diseases were thought to be miraculous. Had we done as you suggest, we'd have never known any better. There has never been a single occasion in the history of science when assuming the supernatural has ever improved our knowledge of anything. Instead it has only ever served to hinder or retard understanding. That seems to be what superstitious beliefs were designed to do.

 

[Cabal]

In my earlier years, I saw a scientist's rendition of how the Ten Plagues of Egypt could have occurred, and I thought it was laughable.

Yeah, you do realise that apart from being a plausible model it still allows that Goddidit?

Just because something isn't overtly done purely by hovering angels of Death doesn't make it less miraculous? Surely most small miracles in people's lives are as much TIMING as anything else?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's not uniformitarianism; that's methodological naturalism, the rule where you can never just give up and say "I dunno, maybe it wuz magic". You still have to try and find the real answer.

And as I told one geologist here, if your attitude is that you're out there looking for "magic"* --- and if your dig was being sponsored by my corporation --- I'd demand your removal from the site --- right quickly.

Once upon a time, things like epilepsy and diseases were thought to be miraculous.

Now we get to the right word --- don't we?

You guys are as transparent as an open window.

Had we done as you suggest, we'd have never known any better.

I disagree.

There has never been a single occasion in the history of science when assuming the supernatural has ever improved our knowledge of anything.

It surely improved the life of the one who was healed.

However, q.v. this thread please 1.

Miracles were not done to "improve your knowledge of anything" --- they were done to validate the fact that God was indeed "with us" as prophecied in Isaiah 7:14 and fulfilled in Matthew 1:23.

When God wants to improve your knowledge --- He will do it through the "gift of knowledge" --- which is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

The Tower of Babel "miracle" was done, in my opinion, to stunt the growth of science --- (for awhile).

Instead it has only ever served to hinder or retard understanding. That seems to be what superstitious beliefs were designed to do.

Not hardly --- Aristotle's science --- that's "science", not "superstitious beliefs" --- hindered and retarded understanding for some 2000 years.

* He used the word "myth".

 

[Pete Harcoff]

That's not uniformitarianism; that's methodological naturalism, the rule where you can never just give up and say "I dunno, maybe it wuz magic". You still have to try and find the real answer.

Maybe we need some new terms. Like "realityism" versus "magicalmakeitupasyougoism".

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe we need some new terms. Like "realityism" versus "magicalmakeitupasyougoism".

Anything but "miracle" --- right?

Then you wonder why you should be able to find something.

If a magician produces an apple "out of thin air", and you investigate this "magic act", you would expect to find evidence --- and would.

If a magician produces an apple "ex nihilo", and you investigate this as a "magic act", you would expect to find evidence --- but wouldn't.

If you investigated it as a "miracle", you should expect to find no evidence, and wouldn't.

 

[Jester4kicks]

Anything but "miracle" --- right?

Then you wonder why you should be able to find something.

If a magician produces an apple "out of thin air", and you investigate this "magic act", you would expect to find evidence --- and would.

If a magician produces an apple "ex nihilo", and you investigate this as a "magic act", you would expect to find evidence --- but wouldn't.

If you investigated it as a "miracle", you should expect to find no evidence, and wouldn't.

I have never put anyone on a forum on an ignore list... but this thread seals the deal. dad is obviously never going to come up with anything more than the same broken record... and AV is just going to keep in being AV.

I've had enough. The bigger problem is that knowing there are people like AV and dad out there is actually making me a little jaded toward religious people in general... and I don't want that.

AV and dad... I wish you the best.

 

[dad]

I have never put anyone on a forum on an ignore list... but this thread seals the deal. dad is obviously never going to come up with anything more than the same broken record... and AV is just going to keep in being AV.

I've had enough. The bigger problem is that knowing there are people like AV and dad out there is actually making me a little jaded toward religious people in general... and I don't want that.

AV and dad... I wish you the best.

Thank you. There is no other option, those that settle for just the box, can only debate in the box. The creation debate is not in the box. Those that think it is, and things like the video in the OP, don't know Jack.

There are so many things outside the box, that have to be denied, and waved away, like the spiritual!

'Nothing exists, because it is not seen by the binoculars of the box, or known in the books of the box, or by the wise men of the box, for the box, and of the box, and nothing but the box'! 'All debate must be with the rules of the box, and all things beyond the box must be understood, though invisible, by the rules of the box, and only the rules of the box..amen'

By ignoring the reality that there is more than the box, they may have a comfortable place, but they may never get down to the nitty gritty evidences and observations, etc that tell us something was different, and is not in the box now. I prefer to look out and not live in denial, and fear, and demeaning subjagation to vile fables, and cowtow to the terrorists of the faith of innocents. But to each his own, good luck in the box.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, Dad, I just gotta bring this up --- don't hate me for it ---

QV please: 674.

 

[dad]

I'm sorry, Dad, I just gotta bring this up --- don't hate me for it ---

QV please: 674.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No. Science cannot say my interpretation is wrong!

And you cannot say your interpretation is right.

You would be at a stalemate, except that science has a track record of accually accomplishing things, and all you do is blather.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Now we get to the right word --- don't we?

The words, "magic" and "miracle" have the same definition.

Common men may be murdered. VIPs are assassinated.
Poor men may be crazy, but the wealthy are eccentric.
Mystics perform magic, while deities perform miracles.

It surely improved the life of the one who was healed.

I can't say it 'surely' has since we can't be sure if they were healed at all, or if they were, what healed them?

My granddaughter has cancer. Lots of people want to tell me what a miracle it is that she is recovering. But she was on death's door when they rushed her into the UCU, and I have to wonder why God's miracles didn't begin until after the chemo started flowing.

When God wants to improve your knowledge --- He will do it through the "gift of knowledge" --- which is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

But it is never verifiable as knowledge and still only counts as subjective belief.

 

[Nathan Poe]

When God wants to improve your knowledge --- He will do it through the "gift of knowledge" --- which is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

And when he wants to improve yours, you'll do what you always do: tell Him to take a hike.

The Tower of Babel "miracle" was done, in my opinion, to stunt the growth of science --- (for awhile).

Funny how whenever God (or His followers) tries to keep people ignorant and helpless, it never lasts long.

Not hardly --- Aristotle's science --- that's "science", not "superstitious beliefs" --- hindered and retarded understanding for some 2000 years.

How so -- aside from Aristotle being anti-evolution?

 

[Split Rock]

My granddaughter has cancer. Lots of people want to tell me what a miracle it is that she is recovering. But she was on death's door when they rushed her into the UCU, and I have to wonder why God's miracles didn't begin until after the chemo started flowing.

My best wishes for your granddaughters full recovery.

 

[Split Rock]

Funny how whenever God (or His followers) tries to keep people ignorant and helpless, it never lasts long.

Quoted for truth. Why is it that AVET's all-powerful and all-knowing, perfect god cannot do anything right the first time? Why is it that nothing He fixes stays fixed?