Bible-Creation-Evolution (2)

[AV1611VET]

The reason that evidence does not exist is because science is unable to test for it. It's a limitation of science called methodological materialism. This limits science to looking ONLY at the "physical" or "material" or "natural".

But it also limits science in the comments it can make about the existence of the spiritual. Science can't tell you it does not exist.

Your demand is like asking me to show evidence of mitochondria but the only instrument I have is the Hubble Telescope.

May I quote you on this, Lucaspa?

I get tired of telling these people that science is myopic, or until they build a machine that can do this...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

From now on, I could just qv to this post.

 

[Nathan Poe]

That's not going to happen this side of the Rapture.

How is something that's already happened "not going to happen"?

Or are you confused (again) as to which side of the rapture you're on?

 

[Nathan Poe]

May I quote you on this, Lucaspa?

I get tired of telling these people that science is myopic, or until they build a machine that can do this...

2 Kings 6:17 And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

From now on, I could just qv to this post.

Won't be much of a point until you can produce a God who can do that.

But making a point has never been your forte, has it?

 

[mzungu]

I hope you saw the humor in my reply --

Quite frankly I did suspect you were speaking in jest but I (pardon the pun) FELL for it

I think 'insincere' is too strong a term. I believe if one 'makes up something' to subordinate science to Scripture, then that's his prerogative.

The alternative, of course, is just to pull rank and say, 'God did it' all the time, and that would be that.

As I have pointed out many times before, you guys don't ask questions covered in the Scriptures (you know better), you ask questions not specifically covered in the Scriptures, then whine when we speculate.

Even just recently here, a newbie showed up, admitted he hadn't read the Bible, then, just by coincidence (rolls eyes), asked questions that weren't expressly covered in the Scriptures.

(He later admitted he did read the Bible -- but it's been a long time since he had. You guys are as see-through as a new window pane.)

I like the faux pas, where someone comes on here, thinking he's cute, and demands to know the events at the tomb on Resurrection day, thinking the Scriptures contradict Themselves, only to find that Scofield settled that PRATT a long time ago.

This is by far your best post. A surprisingly good post. I am impressed AV. You make some good points here! We may make a good debater of you someday!

 

[rjc34]

This of course ignores that there was a global conspiracy to refute the reigning scientific theory -- creationism -- in the early 1800s.

FSTDT.

This is absolutely hilarious. Thanks for making my day.

I shouldn't probably point out that at no time has 'creationism' ever been or ever will be a scientific theory of any kind. It's theology pure and simple.

 

[AV1611VET]

Quite frankly I did suspect you were speaking in jest but I (pardon the pun) FELL for it

This is by far your best post. A surprisingly good post. I am impressed AV. You make some good points here! We may make a good debater of you someday!

You're a nice chap to converse with!

Just out of curiosity, is that a dingo in your avatar?

 

[Nathan Poe]

FSTDT.

This is absolutely hilarious. Thanks for making my day.

I shouldn't probably point out that at no time has 'creationism' ever been or ever will be a scientific theory of any kind. It's theology pure and simple.

You realize that lucaspa was joking, right?

Poe's Law Strikes Again.

 

[Hespera]

FSTDT.

This is absolutely hilarious. Thanks for making my day.

I shouldn't probably point out that at no time has 'creationism' ever been or ever will be a scientific theory of any kind. It's theology pure and simple.

the microscope- researcher avatar lends a rather magnificent
gravitas to the whole thing tho dont you think?

 

[rjc34]

False. You do not know any such thing.

Only in your twisted universe.

 

[rjc34]

You realize that lucaspa was joking, right?

Poe's Law Strikes Again.

*Sigh* Ah well. I still enjoyed it when I thought he was serious.

 

[rjc34]

It's a limitation of science called methodological materialism.

Correction: methodological naturalism.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Correction: methodological naturalism.

They're more or less synonymous

 

[AV1611VET]

They're more or less synonymous

Methodological naturalism = scientific method.

 

[rjc34]

They're more or less synonymous

I dunno, I think naturalism is slightly more open in that it leaves the door slightly ajar for explanations from forces we don't yet understand.

But yes, I think these days the terms are more or less synonymous.

 

[lucaspa]

Correction: methodological naturalism.

It's called both.

"This is sometimes referred to as the principle of methodological materialism in science: we explain the natural world using only matter; energy, and their interactions (materialism)." Eugenic Scott, head of National Center for Science Education.

I tend to use "methodological materialism" because "nature" is not necessarily completely material. That's what Methodological Materialism states.

 

[lucaspa]

May I quote you on this, Lucaspa?

No. Because I have enough experience with you that I feel you will twist it to mean something I did not mean.

I get tired of telling these people that science is myopic, or until they build a machine that can do this...

It's not "myopic". See what I mean by twisting? It's a limitation. It demands neutrality towards the existence of deity and whether or not deity superintends nature.

 

[lucaspa]

Won't be much of a point until you can produce a God who can do that.

Nathan, it's not about God, it's about science. Specifically, it's how we conduct experiments. We have no "control" for God. As the wag put it "you can't keep God out of a test tube and you can't put him into one."

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan, it's not about God, it's about science. Specifically, it's how we conduct experiments. We have no "control" for God. As the wag put it "you can't keep God out of a test tube and you can't put him into one."

True -- but AV likes to blather on about how he "holds science to a higher standard." I just enjoy pointing out that this standard is even higher than the one he holds his own God to.

 

[lucaspa]

I shouldn't probably point out that at no time has 'creationism' ever been or ever will be a scientific theory of any kind. It's theology pure and simple.

Sorry, but creationism is a scientific theory. See below before you answer. A falsified one. But a scientific theory does not lose its status by being falsified. It simply moves from the short column of currently valid theories to the long column of falsified ones.

Now, since creationism is falsified, modern day creationists have trouble trying to present it as valid. That's where your confusion that it is "theology pure and simple" comes from.

"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:" Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126

 

[lucaspa]

True -- but AV likes to blather on about how he "holds science to a higher standard." I just enjoy pointing out that this standard is even higher than the one he holds his own God to.

LOL! Good point. AV's god is a false idol. That's why he lowers the bar for it.