dad'd "Box"

[Electric Sceptic]

Ummmmm, I thought perhaps you'd get it by now. I hope that you someday will.

You're right, I don't 'get it', because 'get it' in this context means 'agree with Matthew777'. Yet what you claim you can never support or substantiate. So I certainly I hope I never 'get it' (ie., believe in things because it suits my religious faith, regardless of their lack of evidence).

 

[dad]

Yes, of course. I'd expect someone who is inside the box to say that. Nevertheless, the fact remains. Your box is the 'spiritual' box. Not that you believe that some things have a spiritual element; but rather that you insist on claiming things have a spiritual element when there is no evidence to suggest that they do. For example, evolution is a physical phenomenon. Yet you insist that it has a spiritual aspect, and without taking it into account, any account of evolution is lacking. Yet you cannot demonstrate that this spiritual element exists. This is your box...your insistence on spiritual elements without any evidence at all that such is present.

The spiritual cannot fit in any container! Even the universe itself could not hold God. Just because you may not be able to detect evidence, or even recognize it if you do have it fall on your head doesn't mean much except that you are a mere man.
You want someone to demonstrate that the spiritual is real, and yet you only accept physical evidence. Jesus said, 'though one should rise from the dead, yet they will not believe'. Some did, and He was right! They never even accepted physical evidence.
This is why I find it not that surprising some people swallow things like granny and the creator speck. -With no evidence! The only so called evidence is assuming all there ever was is the physical only, and how it would have to have happened under silly physical only processes. Magically appearing lifeform that in effect evo-created all life on earth! And the magically appearing creator hot soup speck that popped out the sun, moon, and stars, and billions of galaxies from something the size much less than the head of a pin! Onlyphysics logic is what God call 'foolishness'! I have to agree!

 

[Electric Sceptic]

The spiritual cannot fit in any container! Even the universe itself could not hold God. Just because you may not be able to detect evidence, or even recognize it if you do have it fall on your head doesn't mean much except that you are a mere man.

The issue isn't whether the spiritual or god can fit in a container. The issue is not even the spiritual or god. The issue is the spiritual aspect of events, and the evidence that such a spiritual aspect exists. You claim that there is some spiritual aspect to evolution which means that the physical-only explanation is false, but you cannot demonstrate or evidence that this aspect exists. I haven't seen you claim that there is a spiritual aspect to (for example) the water cycle which means that a purely physical explanation of it is false, so there must be something different about evolution - but you can't demonstrate or evidence what it is.

You want someone to demonstrate that the spiritual is real, and yet you only accept physical evidence. Jesus said, 'though one should rise from the dead, yet they will not believe'. Some did, and He was right! They never even accepted physical evidence.

Once again, false. The issue isn't whether or not there is a spiritual; the issue is what evidence there is that there is a spiritual aspect to a given event.

This is why I find it not that surprising some people swallow things like granny and the creator speck. -With no evidence!

I've no idea what this is supposed to mean.

The only so called evidence is assuming all there ever was is the physical only, and how it would have to have happened under silly physical only processes.

Nope. The entire issue is examining events to see if there are causes that wholly rely on the physical. If there are, then it's counter to logic and rationality to insist that there is a spiritual aspect to it. That's what you do. Insist that there is a spiritual aspect to evolution - and that anyone who doesn't take that into account is going to be wrong - without providing anything to indicate that such an aspect exists.

Magically appearing lifeform that in effect evo-created all life on earth! And the magically appearing creator hot soup speck that popped out the sun, moon, and stars, and billions of galaxies from something the size much less than the head of a pin!

No idea what this rant is supposed to talk about.

Onlyphysics logic is what God call 'foolishness'! I have to agree!

So, I guess you find all of science 'foolishness'. The science that built the computer you use - that's 'onlyphysics' logic. I guess it's foolishness? The science that built your car? The planes we fly in? All 'onlyphysics' logic. All 'foolishness', right?

That's the problem. Like all anti-science people, you are quite happy to accept science when it suits you. When it counters your religious beliefs, you start ranting about science (but only when science is talking about the things you don't like) as if it lacks something (the spiritual) when you cannot even remotely evidence that it suffers from such a lack.

This is your box; your refusal to accept that before you can charge others with being in a box, you must demonstrate that there is a need to step outside that box, that there is something lacking in their 'in the box' explanations that them getting outside that box will yield. You haven't - and can't - do this.

 

[Asimov]

God will frustate those who stand in the way of His will.

Where did I say I was frustrated, dad? Do you enjoy making things up? I guess you do, considering this and other threads you've started.

 

[dad]

Where did I say I was frustrated, dad? Do you enjoy making things up? I guess you do, considering this and other threads you've started.

Forgive me, I didn't have you in mind when talking of those who wanted to stand in His way. In other words, He will confound them, outsmart them, overpower them, outmaneuver them, etc. because He can't be beat.

 

[Asimov]

Forgive me, I didn't have you in mind when talking of those who wanted to stand in His way. In other words, He will confound them, outsmart them, overpower them, outmaneuver them, etc. because He can't be beat.

oooh, he's sooooo strong. My hero. Lemme guess, he ate his wheaties?

 

[dad]

The issue isn't whether the spiritual or god can fit in a container. The issue is not even the spiritual or god. The issue is the spiritual aspect of events, and the evidence that such a spiritual aspect exists. You claim that there is some spiritual aspect to evolution which means that the physical-only explanation is false, but you cannot demonstrate or evidence that this aspect exists. [You can't demonstrate it doesn't. At least I have God's word for it, as well as all the same evidence you have, which fits as well] I haven't seen you claim that there is a spiritual aspect to (for example) the water cycle which means that a purely physical explanation of it is false, so there must be something different about evolution - but you can't demonstrate or evidence what it is. [The water cycle is something we know, and can see. Ever since the flood, anyhow, it works that way. Seeing a rock, and assigning age to it is different by far! (or a fossil). The way we do it is look at present physical only processes, then mentally extrapolate them back into an imagined far past, as if thats all there ever was or will be! That is religion. That is belief in the physical only in a time when there was more at work.]


Once again, false. The issue isn't whether or not there is a spiritual; the issue is what evidence there is that there is a spiritual aspect to a given event.


I've no idea what this is supposed to mean.
[They can not say how the first lifeform on earth appeared. (granny). Likewise they cannot say how the little speck sized hot soup big bang in it's earliest stage came to be. Where did it 'magically' come from? To me, that would be important, you know, since the whole universe was said to be in it!]


Nope. The entire issue is examining events to see if there are causes that wholly rely on the physical. If there are, then it's counter to logic and rationality to insist that there is a spiritual aspect to it. [ All depends if there once was or ever will be more than the physical. If so, the folly lies in insisting there never was without proof] That's what you do. Insist that there is a spiritual aspect to evolution - and that anyone who doesn't take that into account is going to be wrong - without providing anything to indicate that such an aspect exists.
[A supernatural aspect is universally accepted, and known worldwide by billions. To stick our head in the sand and deny it is a mentally dangerous game. The bible also provides wonderful insight into our orgins. By the way, I don't think there had to be any evolution at all. Simply a creation, and if any evoluting or adapting was needed, it was under His direction, using His creation. Most of the evolution stuff is bull, just imagination anyhow!
The fossil record speaks to me of a migration outward from eden, not of some creatures evolving to others! The kind of evolving or adapting I'm talking about is something like say, all 30 some odd species of tigers originally coming from one pair. In a merged world, with the spiritual this was easy.]


No idea what this rant is supposed to talk about.
[They can not say how the first lifeform on earth appeared. (granny). Likewise they cannot say how the little speck sized hot soup big bang in it's earliest stage came to be. Where did it 'magically' come from? To me, that would be important, you know, since the whole universe was said to be in it!]


So, I guess you find all of science 'foolishness'. [No. But God does, compared to what He knows! Can't you catch the drift here? Any bits that relate to real present physical are fine. It's when they try to ignore the coming and former (I say) not only physical universe that they run into trouble! The religious bits, trying to carry over the present physical only where it did not exist! ]The science that built the computer you use - that's 'onlyphysics' logic. [I believe inventions are very often inspired, for good or evil. This adds a spiritual aspect here as well, that you can't see or detect! One way to tell, is like music, if we want to know if it's good or bad. How does it make us feel? Uplifted, or sad and depressed. Good, positive, or horrible, fearful, confusing, bad? Same with gizmos. Like a nuclear bomb, does it help mankind? Or kill, destroy, maim, etc? Computers? Well, they can be used either way, and many of these things fulfil prophesy about the end time 'knowlege shall be increased'.] I guess it's foolishness? The science that built your car? The planes we fly in? All 'onlyphysics' logic. All 'foolishness', right?

That's the problem. Like all anti-science people, [On the contrary, it's the severely limited onlyphysics types who are anti science! (at least the most of it they refuse to learn about) ]you are quite happy to accept science when it suits you. [Accept the good, eshew the evil, you bet! I certainly wouldn't give it first place, or worship it above all! Especially the in box stuff! ] When it counters your religious beliefs, you start ranting about science (but only when science is talking about the things you don't like) as if it lacks something (the spiritual) when you cannot even remotely evidence that it suffers from such a lack.

This is your box; your refusal to accept that before you can charge others with being in a box, you must demonstrate that there is a need to step outside that box, that there is something lacking in their 'in the box' explanations that them getting outside that box will yield. [Getting beyond the horrid limitations of the present little physical only knowlege of choice will yeild vast treasures of hitherto undreamed of knowledge that will answer every question! What's lacking in the box you ask? God, for one thing! All the mysteries of the universe for another, just waiting to be discovered! Our departed loved ones, for example can not dwell in the physical only either, neither can eternal life! Miracles are from outside the box, and so much more. We need to step outside the box, because it is going 6 feet under! Why put up with that?!] You haven't - and can't - do this.

.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

You can't demonstrate it doesn't.

It's not up to me to demonstrate it doesn't. It's up to you to demonstrate it does, since you claim it. I can claim that there's an astrological aspect to something, but that doesn't shift the onus of proof onto you to demonstrate that there's not. The onus of proof remains on me to demonstrate that it does, just as the onus of proof remains on you to demonstrate a spiritual aspect that you claim.

At least I have God's word for it

No, you don't. You have your own interpretation of a particular holy text. Of course, there are any number of other holy texts, and any number of interpretations of the particular holy text you use. That doesn't make your interpretation of that one holy text 'God's word'.

as well as all the same evidence you have, which fits as well

"Fits"? Do you mean "is not contradicted by the claim that there is a spiritual aspect?" Then yes, it fits. It also 'fits' the claim that there is an astrological aspect, or the claim that elves directed the whole process. That's not enough.

The water cycle is something we know, and can see. Ever since the flood, anyhow, it works that way.

The water cycle is something science has worked out - just like every other physical process science has analysed. Once upon a time, there were things we didn't know about the water cycle...and claiming a 'spiritual aspect' to it then simply because there were aspects of it we didn't understand was as invalid as claiming a 'spiritual aspect' to evolution because there are aspects of it we don't understand is now.

Seeing a rock, and assigning age to it is different by far! (or a fossil).

No, it's not. Both are done by using the scientific method, and both yield answers and solutions using that method, without any 'spiritual aspect'.

The way we do it is look at present physical only processes, then mentally extrapolate them back into an imagined far past, as if thats all there ever was or will be!

No, we mentally extrapolate using what we can reasonably assume to be the case given our current situation, unless there is evidence that that situation changed at some time in the past. There is no asssumption that "that's all there ever was or will be". There is an assumption that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, that is all that played a part in the particular thing under study. It's the evidence to the contrary that you can't demonstrate.

Which is exactly the way ALL of science works. That's exactly the way we worked out the water cycle, and everything else that science has ever worked.

That is religion.

No, it's not. I suggest you consult a dictionary and find out the meaning of the word 'religion'.

That is belief in the physical only in a time when there was more at work.

No, it is belief in the physical - which we know exists and has an effect. You claim that the physical isn't all that had an effect, but you have not - and cannot - demonstrate this.
Again, it's the same as the water cycle. We determined how it worked based on the physical. No assumption that that's all there was is necessary; all that is necessary is an investigation given that the physical exists (which, of course, we all know it does).

They can not say how the first lifeform on earth appeared. (granny). Likewise they cannot say how the little speck sized hot soup big bang in it's earliest stage came to be. Where did it 'magically' come from? To me, that would be important, you know, since the whole universe was said to be in it!

Here you're simply resorting to the god of the gaps. Because there are aspects of our universe we don't currently understand, you immediately insist that there is a spiritual aspect that science doesn't address and so it will be forever flawed. This is simply not valid, for all the reasons that the god of the gaps notion has been dismissed in the past. Thousands of years ago, I can imagine you doing precisely the same thing to the question of where the rain comes from, and insisting that because we didn't know, there was a spiritual aspect of which we were ignorant and unless we incorporated this spiritual aspect into science, we would never know. It wouldn't have been valid then, and it's not valid now. This is your box.

A supernatural aspect is universally accepted

No, it's not. Millions don't accept it. Many more do, but the fact that millions don't means it's not 'universally accepted'.

and known worldwide by billions.

Believed worldwide by billions. Not known. There is a difference.

To stick our head in the sand and deny it is a mentally dangerous game.

To claim it without evidence is a mentally dangerous game.

And, again, the issue isn't the existence of the spiritual. It's the claimed 'spiritual aspect' to evolutionary theory. Claiming that the spiritual exists is something of a red herring here, because even if it does, that is no indication that there is a 'spiritual aspect' to evolutionary theory, any more that it is an indication that there is a 'spiritual aspect' to the water cycle.

The bible also provides wonderful insight into our orgins.

Many religious texts provide 'insight into' (for which, read 'make claims regarding') our origins. So what? Without empirical verification, the claims of the bible are of no more use than the claims of any other religious text. I know you (being a christian) are more inclined to believe them, but that is beside the point.

By the way, I don't think there had to be any evolution at all. Simply a creation, and if any evoluting or adapting was needed, it was under His direction, using His creation.

'Had' to be any evolution at all? I don't know what that means. The fact remains that there was, and still is, evolution. Whether or not it was under his direction is moot; it existed and exists.

Most of the evolution stuff is bull, just imagination anyhow!

Yeah, those silly scientists, sharing a common delusion for the last hundred years.

It's kind of remarkable, actually. For over a hundred years, virtually all of the world's scientists - christian, atheist, hindu, muslim - they've all shared this same delusion.

The fossil record speaks to me of a migration outward from eden, not of some creatures evolving to others!

I can say that it speaks to me of a bunch of animals arriving here in spaceships last Tuesday, but that's pretty useless. The fossil record supports evolutionary theory; it does not support 'migration outward from eden'.

The kind of evolving or adapting I'm talking about is something like say, all 30 some odd species of tigers originally coming from one pair. In a merged world, with the spiritual this was easy.

Again, you don't need the spiritual to account for this. It is, in fact, precisely what standard evolutionary theory predicts.

No. But God does, compared to what He knows!

Great. When god starts posting here, we'll address that. At the moment, you're posting. Do you claim that all of science is foolishness? If so, how on earth is all this 'foolishness' so successful, so accurate? How has 'foolishness' led to all that science has accomplished?

Can't you catch the drift here? Any bits that relate to real present physical are fine. It's when they try to ignore the coming and former (I say) not only physical universe that they run into trouble!

Here we are again, with you postulating something for which you provide no evidence at all. What you call 'physicalonly' science has achieved huge successes in allowing us to understand our world and predict its behaviour. It has succeeded in physics, chemistry, biology...every discipline. But you want to claim that - in certain areas which conflict with your religious belief - it's inherently flawed because it doesn't take into account the spiritual. But you can't evidence this flaw, and you can't evidence that this spiritual is required in order for science to continue to succeed.

The religious bits, trying to carry over the present physical only where it did not exist!

I don't know what this means.

I believe inventions are very often inspired, for good or evil. This adds a spiritual aspect here as well, that you can't see or detect!

Again, you claim something but provide absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever. I can claim there's an astrological aspect to all inventions, that you can't see or detect. But it's a pretty useless claim unless I can support it. I can't, just as you can't support your claim above.

One way to tell, is like music, if we want to know if it's good or bad. How does it make us feel? Uplifted, or sad and depressed. Good, positive, or horrible, fearful, confusing, bad? Same with gizmos. Like a nuclear bomb, does it help mankind? Or kill, destroy, maim, etc? Computers? Well, they can be used either way, and many of these things fulfil prophesy about the end time 'knowlege shall be increased'.

One way to tell what?

On the contrary, it's the severely limited onlyphysics types who are anti science! (at least the most of it they refuse to learn about)

No, it's not. Science excludes the spiritual; all it can study is the physical. Sorry, but that's just what science is. The 'onlyphysics' types are the ones doing science; people trying to talk of some spiritual dimension aren't doing science. That's not to say that there isn't merit to claims of a spiritual dimension - it's just to say that those claims aren't scientific claims.

See, you talk of people being 'anti-science' by being 'onlyphysics' types. But what you mean is 'anti-an-amalgamation-of-science-and-the-spiritual-that-I'd-like-to-call-science'. But if you amalgamate science and the spiritual (whether that would be worthwhile or not), you don't get science. You get something else, because science studies only the physical.

It's as if I declared that religion should include baseball scores, and then claimed that those who talked of religion without talking of baseball scores weren't really talking about religion at all. That's nonsense, because religion has nothing to do with baseball scores. I could create some blend of the two (perhaps), but it wouldn't be religion. You can created some blend of science and spirituality, but the result won't be science.

Accept the good, eshew the evil, you bet!

Nobody's talking about 'good' or 'evil'. We're talking about accurate and inaccurate. As long as science doesn't tread on your religious toes, you think it's just fine. As soon as it does, you want it to change into your 'spiritualscience'. Sorry, but that's not valid.

I certainly wouldn't give it first place, or worship it above all!

That's good, because nobody I've ever heard of does so.

Especially the in box stuff!

What you call 'the in the box' stuff is all that science is. As soon as it steps outside the box, it stops being science.

Getting beyond the horrid limitations of the present little physical only knowlege of choice will yeild vast treasures of hitherto undreamed of knowledge that will answer every question!

That's a religious claim which may be correct (although, again, there's no evidence that it is - in fact, there's circumstantial evidence to the contrary, since it is science that has yielded the vast treasures of knowledge that we have), but it's completely beside the point. You haven't - and can't - demonstrate that, regarding evolution (or anything else science studies), there is any spiritual aspect that exists that provides answers science cannot.

What's lacking in the box you ask? God, for one thing! All the mysteries of the universe for another, just waiting to be discovered!

Yet religion can't discover the most basic facts about our world. It's amazing that all the 'mysteries' that religion discovers can't be verified...except by that religion.

Our departed loved ones, for example can not dwell in the physical only either, neither can eternal life! Miracles are from outside the box, and so much more. We need to step outside the box, because it is going 6 feet under! Why put up with that?!

Now you're firmly into religious prosletyzing, which is not relevant to the issue under discussion. However, as to 'why put up with that' - because there's no evidence that there's anything else.

 

[dad]

It's not up to me to demonstrate it doesn't. It's up to you to demonstrate it does, since you claim it.

I claim the spiritual has had an effect, as well as claiming you are unable to see it demonstrated. It is up to you to prove that the physical only is all there ever was if you teach kids that!

That doesn't make your interpretation of that one holy text 'God's word'.

Of course it does in most of the key areas. The flood for example. It is pure word. No doubt about it.

I can claim there's an astrological aspect to all inventions, that you can't see or detect. But it's a pretty useless claim unless I can support it. I can't, just as you can't support your claim above

God made astrological effects as well as spirits. If you have a biblical case for something solid of sound mind, and were serious, it would be one thing. The bible tells us spirits influence things in a direct way, like the angel sent to Balam. Or the angel sent to Joseph Jesus' dad, in a dream etc. Your quarel seems to be with God and the bible, not me.

One way to tell what?

I was talking about telling if a song or invention was good or bad, thats what.

Nobody's talking about 'good' or 'evil'. We're talking about accurate and inaccurate. As long as science doesn't tread on your religious toes, you think it's just fine. As soon as it does, you want it to change into your 'spiritualscience'. Sorry, but that's not valid

Hey, good word! I like that one. Spiritualscience! Absolutely as important as physical only science, or merged science! Science has three legs, and those onlyphysics folks have only one to stand on, which is of limited value alone.

What you call 'the in the box' stuff is all that science is. As soon as it steps outside the box, it stops being science

No, not at all, it simply goes beyond your physical only ability top recognize it!

That's a religious claim which may be correct (although, again, there's no evidence that it is - in fact, there's circumstantial evidence to the contrary, since it is science that has yielded the vast treasures of knowledge that we have), but it's completely beside the point. You haven't - and can't - demonstrate that, regarding evolution (or anything else science studies), there is any spiritual aspect that exists that provides answers science cannot.

Your vast knowledge came largely from without. Good and bad inspiration, good and evil. Mostly evil, it seems these days! But go ahead and think it's all man's glory, and ideas, and that there never was anything else but the physical only, just because you can't get physical only proof. I maintain there is and always was a world of evidence for the supernatural. Healings, prophesy, dreams, miracles, ressurections, and so much more.

Yet religion can't discover the most basic facts about our world. It's amazing that all the 'mysteries' that religion discovers can't be verified...except by that religion.

Funny you should mention that! I too find it incredible how little, no- how nothing PO science can detect or verify!! Through both incompetence and unwillingness.

'why put up with that' - because there's no evidence that there's anything else.

Spoken like a true ostrich.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I claim the spiritual has had an effect, as well as claiming you are unable to see it demonstrated. It is up to you to prove that the physical only is all there ever was if you teach kids that!

No, it is up to you to support your claim. You haven't.

I do not teach kids that 'the physical only is all there ever was', nor does science.

Of course it does in most of the key areas. The flood for example. It is pure word. No doubt about it.

No, it doesn't, and there's plenty of doubt about it, as witness the fact that huge numbers of people the world over doubt it.

God made astrological effects as well as spirits. If you have a biblical case for something solid of sound mind, and were serious, it would be one thing. The bible tells us spirits influence things in a direct way, like the angel sent to Balam. Or the angel sent to Joseph Jesus' dad, in a dream etc. Your quarel seems to be with God and the bible, not me.

Nice try. You are evading the fact that you still cannot provide any evidence for this 'spiritual aspect' of evolution.

I was talking about telling if a song or invention was good or bad, thats what.

Well that's nice. Completely irrelevant, but nice. I guess.

Hey, good word! I like that one. Spiritualscience! Absolutely as important as physical only science, or merged science! Science has three legs, and those onlyphysics folks have only one to stand on, which is of limited value alone.

Yeah, great you just go invent your 'spiritualscience'. Just don't confuse it with science.

No, not at all, it simply goes beyond your physical only ability top recognize it!

I don't have a 'physical only' anything. It goes beyond science, because all science is concerned with si the physical. Why is that so hard for your to understand?

Your vast knowledge came largely from without. Good and bad inspiration, good and evil. Mostly evil, it seems these days! But go ahead and think it's all man's glory, and ideas, and that there never was anything else but the physical only, just because you can't get physical only proof. I maintain there is and always was a world of evidence for the supernatural. Healings, prophesy, dreams, miracles, ressurections, and so much more.

You keep on maintaining that, despite your complete inability to even support your claim reagarding evolution.

Funny you should mention that! I too find it incredible how little, no- how nothing PO science can detect or verify!! Through both incompetence and unwillingness.

This paragraph shows how little you know about science.

Spoken like a true ostrich.

Spoken like somebody stuck in their box.

 

[dad]

No, it is up to you to support your claim. You haven't. [I have]

I do not teach kids that 'the physical only is all there ever was', nor does science.
[Science uses physical only present processes and assumes they applied to some distant unknown past, and will apply to the future, such as in saying the sun will burn out. In so many ways, oh yes it does! And it is taught to kids.]


No, it doesn't, and there's plenty of doubt about it, as witness the fact that huge numbers of people the world over doubt it.
[It doesn't matter who doubts. The fact is the bible teaches a flood. Jesus also talked about it, how it swept men away. ]


Nice try. You are evading the fact that you still cannot provide any evidence for this 'spiritual aspect' of evolution.
[I don't believe in evolution, so how do you want me to support it! As I say if there was any situations where some fast adapting was needed, no problem! I gave examples, like the king who got down on all fours, turned into an animal, and ate grass. If it can be demonstated some evolution did occur, or rapid adaption, then we bring it the spiritual aspect, and, in so doing, embarss as always physical only types with their complete lack of ability to even detect it!]


Well that's nice. Completely irrelevant, but nice. I guess.


Yeah, great you just go invent your 'spiritualscience'. Just don't confuse it with science.
[You mean physical only science. Don't worry I know the difference well, it's like having a rolls in the garage, and a broken tricycle-you know the difference! ]


I don't have a 'physical only' anything. It goes beyond science, because all science is concerned with si the physical. Why is that so hard for your to understand? [ I understand it well! Glad you do too. All you don't understand is that the rolls of spiritual science, not to mention merged science, are there too]


You keep on maintaining that, despite your complete inability to even support your claim reagarding evolution.


This paragraph shows how little you know about science.
[No, it shows I know they are unable to study the spirit world yet]


Spoken like somebody stuck in their box.
This is funny. People trying to out box me.

.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

No, it is up to you to support your claim. You haven't. [I have]

No, you haven't. You haven't even attempted to so.

Science uses physical only present processes and assumes they applied to some distant unknown past, and will apply to the future, such as in saying the sun will burn out. In so many ways, oh yes it does! And it is taught to kids.

Science uses physical only processes because that is all it studies; that is all it can study. It nowhere, at any stage, teaches that the physical is all there is, was, or will be.

It doesn't matter who doubts. The fact is the bible teaches a flood. Jesus also talked about it, how it swept men away.

Sorry, but your unsupported assertion that it is fact doesn't demonstrate anything except that you believe in it - particularly when the thing you claim to be 'fact' has been amply demonstrated to be false.

I don't believe in evolution, so how do you want me to support it!

You claim you don't believe in evolution, and then...

As I say if there was any situations where some fast adapting was needed, no problem!

You claim that where evolution 'was needed', 'no problem'. Make up your mind.

I gave examples, like the king who got down on all fours, turned into an animal, and ate grass.

What is that supposed to be an example of? A fairy tale?

If it can be demonstated some evolution did occur, or rapid adaption

It can and has.

then we bring it the spiritual aspect

Without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

and, in so doing, embarss as always physical only types with their complete lack of ability to even detect it!

The only embarassment 'physical only' (read: 'scientists') feel is embarassment on your behalf when you spout this drivel.

You mean physical only science.

I mean science. Calling it 'physical only' science is reduntant. The physical is all science studies or can study.

Don't worry I know the difference well, it's like having a rolls in the garage, and a broken tricycle-you know the difference!

Yes, I'm sure you do. Science is what you accept, believe in, and use...until it violates your religious beliefs. Then you abandon it, criticise it (despite its successes) and create your own little 'spiritualscience' which is just god of the gaps.

I understand it well! Glad you do too. All you don't understand is that the rolls of spiritual science, not to mention merged science, are there too

There is no 'spiritual science', or 'merged science'. There is only science. Your 'spiritual science' is something you've invented to bring in your god of the gaps. It achieves nothing, discovers nothing, demonstrates nothing.

No, it shows I know they are unable to study the spirit world yet

Again you show how little you know about science. It does not study the spirit world; it cannot. It studies the physical world. That's what science is - the study of the physical world.

This is funny. People trying to out box me.

Hey, if you want to characterise a particular position as a 'box', don't be surprised when people identify the positions you take as such - particularly when they prevent you from rationally discussing subjects such as science.

 

[dad]

No, you haven't. You haven't even attempted to so.
[ I offered the known spiritual world, and it's known evidences. I offered the bible. I can't offer in box evidence for out of box things]

Science uses physical only processes because that is all it studies; that is all it can study. It nowhere, at any stage, teaches that the physical is all there is, was, or will be.
[Oh but it does six ways from sunday, in effect. How else would we extrapolate backward for present things like decay, light speed, etc? They assume it always was the same physical based decay, which would not take place in a merged, or a spiritual envrioment! They assume men never lived forever, or for near a thousand years, because we now can't. They assume no merged new heaven and earth will appear, where the sun will never burn out but be eternal, because they assume present decay always will apply! Etc etc etc. Beyond doubt]


Sorry, but your unsupported assertion that it is fact doesn't demonstrate anything except that you believe in it - particularly when the thing you claim to be 'fact' has been amply demonstrated to be false.
[My sentiments exactly, as applied to the box of physical only science!!!!]


You claim you don't believe in evolution, and then...


You claim that where evolution 'was needed', 'no problem'. Make up your mind.
[Funny, no one showed it was needed. If there was some raid adaptation after the flood, under a merged scenario, then it would explain it anyhow, but, so far, all we have is evo assumptions, and fantasy groupings!]


What is that supposed to be an example of? A fairy tale?
[The power of the addition of the spiritual, to reverse evolute a man to a beast in a new york minute]


It can and has.
[Not on this thread, and only in the minds of onlyphysics devotees]


Without any supporting evidence whatsoever.


The only embarassment 'physical only' (read: 'scientists') feel is embarassment on your behalf when you spout this drivel.
[Since they can't disprove it, they are welcome to red faces]


I mean science. Calling it 'physical only' science is reduntant. The physical is all science studies or can study.
[I like it when you folks admit to that! It's like saying 'I haven't a clue, but I know I won the arguement, nya nya nya!']


Yes, I'm sure you do. Science is what you accept, believe in, and use...until it violates your religious beliefs. Then you abandon it, criticise it (despite its successes) and create your own little 'spiritualscience' which is just god of the gaps.
[Better than gap of the God! I didn't invent ghosts or angels, or God, or the spirit world. The rules that govern it, or laws are very real, and truly science in the full and true sense of the word, not some peepsqeek usurpers little would be exclusive physical version!]


There is no 'spiritual science', or 'merged science'. There is only science. [ No, there is a worlsd outside the sand your head is in. ]Your 'spiritual science' is something you've invented to bring in your god of the gaps. It achieves nothing, discovers nothing, demonstrates nothing.
[It explains near everything, and leaves the box in the dust]


Again you show how little you know about science. It does not study the spirit world; it cannot. [I know that, and knew that. Totally inept at it, they are] It studies the physical world. That's what science is - the study of the physical world.
[No, thats what physical only science, or as the bible calls it, 'science falsely so called' is. True science looks at more-much more, and does not end up in ridiculous Godless fairy tale land as a result, like PO science, and it's granny and the speck!]


Hey, if you want to characterise a particular position as a 'box', don't be surprised when people identify the positions you take as such - particularly when they prevent you from rationally discussing subjects such as science.
[I never said I was surprised, only amused at the feeble, inappropriate attempt, and the silly desperation of it]

.

 

[Asimov]

Story thus far:

dad: everyone but me is in a box!
everyone: what?
dad: you see, those silly physical only scientists have no idea about this spiritual world that exists, they can't even detect it! har har!
everyone: so....how do you know this spiritual world exists?
dad: the bible says so!
everyone: can you prove it?
dad: I already have!
everyone: where?
dad: The bible!

 

[peepnklown]

Dad

I think you should have all of your post read by the entire neighborhood before you post them.

 

[dad]

Dad

I think you should have all of your post read by the entire neighborhood before you post them.

They'll have to wait, just like everyone else.

 

[dad]

Story thus far:

dad: everyone but me is in a box!
everyone: what?
dad: you see, those silly physical only scientists have no idea about this spiritual world that exists, they can't even detect it! har har!
everyone: so....how do you know this spiritual world exists?
dad: the bible says so!
everyone: can you prove it?
dad: I already have!
everyone: where?
dad: The bible!

Actually the spiritual is well known not just by those who believe the bible. Natives, aboriginals, and many religions, even some on the dark side. And the ressurection was witnessed by many as He appeared to them.
Life after death experiences, esp, etc.
If someone wants to claim that God never made us, and it was billions of years ago, and that they know this, and they know it because of present processes, and that no spiritual could have changed things, they better be able to prove it! If they are going to tell kids there is no spiritual, because it isn't physical, so it couldn't be, cause we can't touch it, and we are all going to die, and burn up-then they better expect some opposition.

 

[coolstylinstud]

What makes non christians think there ways are so open i mean think about it if someone is not open to doing whatever they want then you get all like judgemental because they dont live life like you and they obey differnet rules

 

[Electric Sceptic]

[ I offered the known spiritual world, and it's known evidences. I offered the bible. I can't offer in box evidence for out of box things

You offered something you believe in and cannot provide evidence for.

Oh but it does six ways from sunday, in effect. How else would we extrapolate backward for present things like decay, light speed, etc? They assume it always was the same physical based decay, which would not take place in a merged, or a spiritual envrioment! They assume men never lived forever, or for near a thousand years, because we now can't. They assume no merged new heaven and earth will appear, where the sun will never burn out but be eternal, because they assume present decay always will apply! Etc etc etc. Beyond doubt

It doesn't do it any way, from sunday or any other day. Whether you like it or not, they physical exists, and we can observe it and make reliable predictions based upon those observations. This says nothing whatsoever about the existence or properties of any spiritual realm; for you to claim it does is simply dishonest.

My sentiments exactly, as applied to the box of physical only science!!!!

That's because you are woefully ignorant as to science.

Funny, no one showed it was needed. If there was some raid adaptation after the flood, under a merged scenario, then it would explain it anyhow, but, so far, all we have is evo assumptions, and fantasy groupings!

We don't have to show it was 'needed'; we can and have shown that it has happened.

The power of the addition of the spiritual, to reverse evolute a man to a beast in a new york minute

That's nice. I can invent fairy tales to demonstrate the power of anything I like. Without supporting evidence, however, they are just that - fairy tales.

Not on this thread, and only in the minds of onlyphysics devotees

Not on this thread, because that is not the purpose of this thread. Again you are dishonest, because you know as well as I that the evidence provided for evolution has convinved the vast majority of the world's scientists, most of whom are theists, and thus cannot be 'onlyphysics' devotees.

Since they can't disprove it, they are welcome to red faces

They don't need to disprove it; until you offer some evidence they can simply disregard it.

I like it when you folks admit to that! It's like saying 'I haven't a clue, but I know I won the arguement, nya nya nya!'

No, it's not. Again you demonstrate your ignorance and hatred of science.

Better than gap of the God! I didn't invent ghosts or angels, or God, or the spirit world. The rules that govern it, or laws are very real, and truly science in the full and true sense of the word, not some peepsqeek usurpers little would be exclusive physical version!

The only version of science is the 'physical version'. Science cannot and does not study anything outside the physical.

No, there is a worlsd outside the sand your head is in.

My head is not in any sand. There may well be a spiritual world; that is not at issue. That spiritual world (if it exists) is not the province of science. To denigrate people who study science simply because they (unlike you) recognise science for what it is, again, simply dishonest.

It explains near everything, and leaves the box in the dust

It explains nothing.

I know that, and knew that. Totally inept at it, they are

Yup, just like religion is totally inept at describing baseball scores. Anything is inept at describing something totally outside its sphere. You seem to think that this is a bad thing, which again just reveals your ignorance of science.

No, thats what physical only science, or as the bible calls it, 'science falsely so called' is.

No, thats what science is. ALL science is 'physical only'. That's all science studies. Nor can you demonstrate that science is what the bible calls 'science falsely so called'.

True science looks at more-much more, and does not end up in ridiculous Godless fairy tale land as a result, like PO science, and it's granny and the speck!

Nope. Science looks at the physical. Sorry, but you don't get to invent some new version of something, add the 'spiritual' to it and then claim that what you've invented is the real thing. If there is or can be some sort of combination of science and the spiritual, then the result is not science, however useful it may be.

I never said I was surprised, only amused at the feeble, inappropriate attempt, and the silly desperation of it]

"feeble, inappropriate"..."silly desparation"...sounds like creationism to me, as well as your silly attempt to characterise scientists as being 'in a box'.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

What makes non christians think there ways are so open i mean think about it if someone is not open to doing whatever they want then you get all like judgemental because they dont live life like you and they obey differnet rules

What rubbish. the only people I ever see doing that here are certain Christians, and sometimes it almost makes me ashamed to be one. Not quite, but almost.

Ghost