Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That wasn't what I asked. I said you would reject subjective evidence, because it does not fit your pre-conceived ideas of what evidence ought to be. That's your choice, but you can't then turn around and claim the result as proof that the subjective evidence was false.
Science rejects the use of non-repeatable, subjective evidence because it is unreliable and impossible to test. This is nothing more than a practical matter, and you have not demonstrated how such evidence could be used effectively by science.
Simple. Ask the person in question. He'll tell you about his subjective, non-repeatable evidence. I'm sure you realize that by demanding objective, repeatable evidence for all claims you categorically yet unjustifiably reject all subjective, non-repeatable evidence. So because you reject A, you reject A. Consistent yes, but also circular.
When God calls me into the scientific venue, I'll go -- until then, I feel I'm blessed with the ability to see life from a faith-only perspective.
I'm not sure. Your the one who seems to have random outbursts when you have been maneuvered into a cornerWhat was this all about?
It seems you agree word for word with what I said.
If the evidence is subjective and thus unverifiable then how could you ever be sure beyond any reasonable doubt that it actually was evidence for or against whatever claim is being made?That wasn't what I asked. I said you would reject subjective evidence, because it does not fit your pre-conceived ideas of what evidence ought to be. That's your choice, but you can't then turn around and claim the result as proof that the subjective evidence was false.
Why does EVERY university in every country IN THE WORLD teach evolution as a fact?
what do they know that the people who are teaching you creationism don't?
Creationists please remember this, if the people teaching you are creationists they only know as much about science and evolution as you do which is nothing, I say that with confidence because I know that if you or they knew ANYTHING about evolution you would not argue against it, the only way anyone would know about evolution and still argue against it would be if they had been indoctrinated in creationism before they were educated.
Evolution is taught because it the foundation of biology, the issue of God does not (usually) come up in undergraduate biology courses as it really has no bearing on the topic.The more important question is WHO do creationists KNOW that the universities do NOT know? If a university or a student of that university or if all the students and universities in the world use science or the study of nature to prove that there is no God or conclude that there is no God, they are wrong.
A properly-trained creationist knows the difference between offense (the Bible) and defense (the shield of faith).Creationists know that the best form of defense is attack which means they are always on the attack because they have no defense.
Oh yes, I forgot to mention the ever present, always used, absolutely necessary semantics, used to keep the truth at bay and problems out of mind.A properly-trained creationist knows the difference between offense (the Bible) and defense (the shield of faith).
Well... OK. If that was your point all along, then I agree with you. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that science should make use of such evidence.
Are you saying we should accept indemonstrable, unverifiable claims as statements of truth?
I really don't get what you are saying here. You say you don't have a problem with it, and that it is the greatest strength of science. Then you claimi it is not "justifiable." What??As you said, science will reject any such evidence, that is not repeatable and objective. I don't have a problem with that, and in fact that is probably the greatest strength of science. However, it is also unjustifiable.
This would simply mean that science would not be able to explain such an aspect. Just like geology does not explain auto-mechanics, or engineering does not explain how to interpret poetry. Thing is, this has (so far) never happened with science.Science will never be able to accept evidence for the world having a subjective, non-repeatable aspect to it, even if that were in fact true -- as there would be no way to test it via the scientific method.
It is justified because it works. Period.But you can't then turn around and say it is justified. This is (from a logical/philosophical perspective) no different than when a Christian tells you that Christianity is true because the Bible says so, and if you want to know the truth you have to go by what is in the Bible and any evidence that would seem to contradict the Bible is not valid evidence.
I really don't get what you are saying here. You say you don't have a problem with it, and that it is the greatest strength of science. Then you claimi it is not "justifiable." What??
This would simply mean that science would not be able to explain such an aspect. Just like geology does not explain auto-mechanics, or engineering does not explain how to interpret poetry. Thing is, this has (so far) never happened with science.
It is justified because it works. Period.
Physical science rules out all metaphysical phenomena before any investigation. This automatically rules out any means which would be devised. In other words, a telescopic astronomer knows that there are no microscopic substances and also that there is something wrong with the microscope. If there wasn't something wrong with the microscope, then the entire operation is defeated. It's not about "detecting", it's just materialism.If something is not there for science to see what would you have science do about it?
you can use or even make up as many fancy words as you like but if something is not there it's not there, unlike science we have our imaginations which is where we originally conjured up the Gods of this world along with spirits, angels, ghosts, demons, dragons and countless other mythical imaginings like superman, King Arthur, Robin Hood and Sherlock Holmes.
If you've entered into debasing men in the middle east for Darwinian evolution, you may have to expand. Though DNA has been discovered in one country, it persists in all countries through experience despite any country's imaginings. The civil war having occurred in the United states is not invalidated by the Chinese through an attempt to point out "what they imagined". The Great Pyramid is intelligently designed both in Egypt and in the United States,Go to the far east or India and see the things they have imagined,
The change in man over the eons also occurred in India as (upon last analysis) the men in India are also men. The far East in relation to the rest of the Earth was recognized as a "strategic" location in distant times though not hte pinnacle. Lastly, where you find a man you will most likely find religion. If you enter a room filled with microscopes, you will most likely hear about micro biology. If you enter an arena with a large telescope, there is a high chance that you will hear about outer space. Man is both the people and the church, the worshipers and the temple. Although Darwinian evolution has reduced its status to a "replicator" when you decide to analyze metaphysics, its history and its correspondences, try to leave that at the door.they have been doing it for a lot longer than we have.
I now have this paper. It only mentions granite in reference to Cerro Sechin in Peru. It only mentions sandstone at Pumapunka.The rock given was diorite which has a hardness of 6.5-7 on Mohs scale. [snip]
Actually there are granite rocks also. Interestingly enough, the citation given for red sandstone within Wikipedia cannot be followed. Other sources like "Who taught the Inca Stonemasons their skills" also state that the rocks used vary between of granite and sandstone (with no mention of "red sandstone")
So how does this formal logic help us? You seem to ignore it in your day to day life because you accept all kinds of things that are "unjustified" according to formal logic.Think of it like this: I'm an agnostic, about everything. I don't know the world is round or that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is all deduction (or induction) from things that, with no justification, I accept as true. If you study formal logic or axiomatic mathematics, you will realize that this is necessarily the case. Just because scientists (or Christians) don't formally list their axioms as such doesn't mean they don't have any. All it means is they're being sloppy in the sense of formal logic.
Not really. What I am saying is that if there was some natural phenomona that science couldn't explain, that we would simply never come up with an explanation for it via science. It would represent a "hole" in our understanding of the physical universe that would never be filled. For example, it may be that science will never be able to explain where our universe came from.And if there were, in fact, some event that was subjective and non-repeatable, you're saying that somehow science would know about it (since you're citing a lack of such as evidence), despite you having shown it cannot?
There are certainly things that science cannot explain. My point is we have yet to come up with a natural phenomena that science cannot explain. Science works in explanating the natural world. For me, that is "justification" enough. I guess I don't understand how you are using the term "justified," or what a form of understanding would look like if it was "justified."No, it is self-consistent because it works. Each axiom system judges itself by its own axioms. Christianity works too. Euclidean geometry works too, and so does non-Euclidean geometry. But funny thing is, non-Euclidean geometry does not work by the standards of Euclidean geometry, some flavors of Christianity might not work by the standards of science, science might not work by the standards of some flavors of Christianity.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?