A Request for Gottservant

[selfinflikted]

I'm thankful Jesus doesn't require us to know all this technostuff in order to get saved.

Instead, a little child should be able to accept Jesus Christ as his/her Saviour.

Science can take a hike.

Yes, it's much easier that way, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, it's much easier that way, isn't it?

Actually it is.

 

[RealityCheck]

Actually it is.

Willful ignorance usually is easier than actual learning. That doesnt make it *better* however. Ignorance is not a path to truth.

 

[Delphiki]

Actually it is.

inconvenient truth > convenient lie

 

[Freodin]

I'm thankful Jesus doesn't require us to know all this technostuff in order to get saved.

Instead, a little child should be able to accept Jesus Christ as his/her Saviour.

Science can take a hike.

No little child would be able to accept Jesus Christ as his/her saviour without "that technostuff" you like to tell to take a hike.

Just consider what the Romans have ever done for you...

 

[AV1611VET]

Willful ignorance usually is easier than actual learning. That doesnt make it *better* however. Ignorance is not a path to truth.

I know.

I can't read a lick of music, and it's my fault.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just consider what the Romans have ever done for you...

Consider what Romans can do for you.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 

[selfinflikted]

I can't read a lick of music, and it's my fault.

Here ya go:

It's easy.

 

[Freodin]

Consider what Romans can do for you.

Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Consider what you just did there.

Consider carefully... everything you do, have done and will do continues to prove my point.

 

[AV1611VET]

Consider what you just did there.

Witnessed to an unbeliever?

Shared the Gospel?

Planted a seed?

Watered someone else's seed?

 

[Loudmouth]

From the top of my head, based on my experience studying the philosophy of science at University and the principle of objectivity.

To be objective, is to regard the impartial as one possibility (and every other possibility as assumed to be balanced).

The scientific method, therefore, is to reduce any query to its working components, establish a systemically reliable way of recreating (ultimately arbitrary) interactions between those components, so as to justify the most useful interpretation of those components in their work as relates to the question. If the question is why do apples fall, then, the scientific method must distinguish apple, fall, and plurality of motion, in the implied context of Earth for which the most useful interpretation is gravity, specifically local gravity, since the distances mentioned are not universe wide in expanse.

You want to argue with that, try arguing that I should have suggested trial and error, as if I could be wrong (I don't have to, so I didn't, but if you want to argue maybe try that).

What's the next thing, oh yeah, scientific theory.

Maintaining that scientific theory is to be objective such that alternatives generated by the theory are all considered balanced the impartiality of such theory being deliberately but admittedly riskily assumed to be impartial, the point of such theory is to provide as many practical configurations to the working of the components in a given question as would provide the correct interpretation for outcomes either specified or unspecified, from among the valid interpretations generated given varying contexts and interpretation.

You want to argue with that, try arguing that scientific theory can be effective with a less than balanced approach (you will have a hard time arguing that balance is of limited value, but if you want to argue try that)

The theory of Evolution?

The theory of Evolution was proclaimed by Darwin to be an attempt to answer the question, how is Creation by God not obviously suffering (implied with no point)? In other words, if God was Himself to become a part of Creation how would He not suffer? (this is from a quote concerning Evolution and God, I have lost the reference other than to say it was in "the Selection of Preferred Races") At the level of principle, the mistake here is to think that God would excuse Himself from suffering, as a reasoned understanding of suffering is that it produces greater good than would otherwise have been possible if nothing suffered. That said, the question remains useful in that it highlights that regarding suffering as useful requires a leap of faith that can be explained for practical purposes as an action of physical law. The answer Darwin came up with is that species are disposable, change is inevitable, context is variable and outcomes are unpredictable. He put all this together in the context of a competition and concluded that God would challenge Creation to perfect itself over time, before entering into its hardship. This is not true. However, once again it proves useful, this time as an example of how much we lose sight of when we don't expressly do the will of God, which is treat life as valuable, change as predictable, context as focused, and outcomes as a function of choice. This exists together in the context of Heaven on Earth, where everyone cooperates (imagine that for a second). This context, is what the Bible predicts and is that which every believer anticipates with joy.

Everything else about scientific theory or method or favoured selection is up for grabs, there are no memes that prove every other meme is wrong, there is no argument that proves every other argument must change, there is no perspective that demonstrates every other perspective can be forgotten. All these things are implied subtexts of people who have no faith in God, and therefore no faith in other people that they will say something that doesn't expose their sin, or embarass them, or limit their "freedom". Arguing with them has been the pleasure of my self, for the sake of the gospel. My most recent thread coherent puts Evolution in context as a work in progress, not an evolution of man, and that is where it will stay.

You want to argue with that, try arguing that even though there is no internal competition among Evolution's memes, any one of them could beat Creation because Creation depends on God (and God can't be proven) (you will have a hard time explaining why dependency alone creates a flaw, but if you want to argue try that).

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

I am still picking my jaw up off the floor.

 

[bhsmte]

I am still picking my jaw up off the floor.

Indeed.

But, is anyone really surprised?

 

[Michael]

Indeed.

But, is anyone really surprised?

Not me.

 

[USincognito]

Science can take a hike.

Then perhaps you should find a different subforum in which to engage in trolling?

Physical & Life Sciences A forum for physics, biology, chemistry and other physical sciences.

 

[USincognito]

From the top of my head, based on my experience studying the philosophy of science at University and the principle of objectivity.

To be objective, is to regard the impartial as one possibility (and every other possibility as assumed to be balanced).

The scientific method, therefore, is to reduce any query to its working components, establish a systemically reliable way of recreating (ultimately arbitrary) interactions between those components, so as to justify the most useful interpretation of those components in their work as relates to the question. If the question is why do apples fall, then, the scientific method must distinguish apple, fall, and plurality of motion, in the implied context of Earth for which the most useful interpretation is gravity, specifically local gravity, since the distances mentioned are not universe wide in expanse.

You want to argue with that, try arguing that I should have suggested trial and error, as if I could be wrong (I don't have to, so I didn't, but if you want to argue maybe try that).

What's the next thing, oh yeah, scientific theory.

Maintaining that scientific theory is to be objective such that alternatives generated by the theory are all considered balanced the impartiality of such theory being deliberately but admittedly riskily assumed to be impartial, the point of such theory is to provide as many practical configurations to the working of the components in a given question as would provide the correct interpretation for outcomes either specified or unspecified, from among the valid interpretations generated given varying contexts and interpretation.

You want to argue with that, try arguing that scientific theory can be effective with a less than balanced approach (you will have a hard time arguing that balance is of limited value, but if you want to argue try that)

The theory of Evolution?

The theory of Evolution was proclaimed by Darwin to be an attempt to answer the question, how is Creation by God not obviously suffering (implied with no point)? In other words, if God was Himself to become a part of Creation how would He not suffer? (this is from a quote concerning Evolution and God, I have lost the reference other than to say it was in "the Selection of Preferred Races") At the level of principle, the mistake here is to think that God would excuse Himself from suffering, as a reasoned understanding of suffering is that it produces greater good than would otherwise have been possible if nothing suffered. That said, the question remains useful in that it highlights that regarding suffering as useful requires a leap of faith that can be explained for practical purposes as an action of physical law. The answer Darwin came up with is that species are disposable, change is inevitable, context is variable and outcomes are unpredictable. He put all this together in the context of a competition and concluded that God would challenge Creation to perfect itself over time, before entering into its hardship. This is not true. However, once again it proves useful, this time as an example of how much we lose sight of when we don't expressly do the will of God, which is treat life as valuable, change as predictable, context as focused, and outcomes as a function of choice. This exists together in the context of Heaven on Earth, where everyone cooperates (imagine that for a second). This context, is what the Bible predicts and is that which every believer anticipates with joy.

Everything else about scientific theory or method or favoured selection is up for grabs, there are no memes that prove every other meme is wrong, there is no argument that proves every other argument must change, there is no perspective that demonstrates every other perspective can be forgotten. All these things are implied subtexts of people who have no faith in God, and therefore no faith in other people that they will say something that doesn't expose their sin, or embarass them, or limit their "freedom". Arguing with them has been the pleasure of my self, for the sake of the gospel. My most recent thread coherent puts Evolution in context as a work in progress, not an evolution of man, and that is where it will stay.

You want to argue with that, try arguing that even though there is no internal competition among Evolution's memes, any one of them could beat Creation because Creation depends on God (and God can't be proven) (you will have a hard time explaining why dependency alone creates a flaw, but if you want to argue try that).

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

That was, in it's own way, beautiful man.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hey Gotts, I wonder if you would indulge me.

Since it occurs to me and several other members here that you have a healthy imagination and many questions about many things.

One of your most prolific topics seems to revolve around The Theory of Evolution.

With this in mind, some of us are trying to answer your questions as best as we can, but there appears to be an issue with communication.

Would it be too much to ask that you post your outline of what you know about Evolution.
It doesn't have to be an essay, just an outline of your knowledge of 3 things.

1: Scientific Method
2: Scientific Theory
3: The Theory of Evolution

Don't look these up (for the moment), just what your own knowledge of each of the 3 is at the present time.

I believe it would help clarify many of your questions and would give those who try to give you answers, an insight into what you already know.

This is NOT an invite for ridicule, I am 100% genuine here and believe answering the above will help all round.

If you decide to decline that's fine. After all, we all have free will.

Thanks for your time

You realize he has mental issues, right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then perhaps you should find a different subforum in which to engage in trolling?

Physical & Life Sciences A forum for physics, biology, chemistry and other physical sciences.

I'll pass, thank you.

You'd like us to leave, wouldn't you?

So those embracing the physical and life sciences can march around unchecked and spout their Antibiblical rhetoric?

 

[Old Ned]

You realize he has mental issues, right?

So I'm told. What difference does that make?

Many would say I have mental issues, I frequently agree.

But on the whole, he seems honest, just misinformed

@Av ... Av me ol' mukka, I did request this thread avoid religion and deities, since the question I posed was about Science.
I realise you like to debate and argue, much like I do, but you can't come into a thread about what Gotts knows about science and preach... well.. you can, it's just a little rude.

When asked what "The Romans" have done for you, you took it and changed the context to "What Romans did for you" .
I'm pretty sure the poster was suggesting the Romans, as in the Race of people and their technological advancements.
You can deny it all you want, but the fact is even the Cross your saviour was nailed to... AND the nails they used were built around the Scientific method, as were his clothes and sandals.
And once again, bashing science on an internet forum is about the height of contradiction and hypocrisy.

@Gotts... I'm still working on replying to your post, just not sure how yet.
Although since this thread has been hijacked, I think it would likely get lost in the thread like many other explanations, which was the point of this thread in the first place. But I'll work on it anyway.

 

[Strathos]

I'm thankful Jesus doesn't require us to know all this technostuff in order to get saved.

Instead, a little child should be able to accept Jesus Christ as his/her Saviour.

Science can take a hike.

This is true. However, that doesn't mean this "technostuff" is false.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is true. However, that doesn't mean this "technostuff" is false.

This is true.

Soteriology and technology have nothing to do with each other.