lawtonfogle
My solace my terror, my terror my solace.
It knows the concept of empirical. Thus, anything not included under empirical is not considered, thus supernatural events can never be considered as explanations.
Upvote
0
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.
It knows the concept of empirical. Thus, anything not included under empirical is not considered, thus supernatural events can never be considered as explanations.I disagree. Science doesn't even have the concepts of natural and supernatural.
Which is where the differences between empirical truths and absolute truths (or real truths, ect.) come into play.God guided evolution is not a scientific statement. That is correct.
But it doesn't make the statement false. A statement doesn't have to be scientific to be true. It just has to be scientific to be part of science.
And since science only deals with scientific explanation, it rejects supernatural agency. This isn't the reject of 'lets test it... oh it is false'. This IS the reject of 'lets tes... no wait, can't test it... ignoring it'.Science does not reject supernatural agency. It rejects making supernatural agents & mechanisms part of a scientific explanation.
And that's good. God as a hypothesis not only doesn't work well in science; it is poor theology as well as it undermines God's sovereignty and makes him subject to experimental/observational falsification.
You are right, science does not go 'we will assume no guiding intelligence in the case of evolution'. Instead, it goes 'Axiom: All explanations worthy of being considered are natural.' That is to say, it assumes the above in the case of all science.
Exactly right.Can it say 'and God was the force behind it'? No, it cannot. No empirical evidence can ever lead to that conclusion unless God is empirical.
Because no position is a default position against the existence there of.
For me, there is no difference in "I do not believe in Zeus (as a deity)" and "I believe Zeus (as a deity) is a false concept".
Which is where the differences between empirical truths and absolute truths (or real truths, ect.) come into play.
And since science only deals with scientific explanation, it rejects supernatural agency. This isn't the reject of 'lets test it... oh it is false'. This IS the reject of 'lets tes... no wait, can't test it... ignoring it'.
I do have a problem with a so-called science that says there's scientific proof to a high degree of accuracy that all life and our existance actually came about thru theistic or any other kind of evolution.
I fully recognize that evolutionists will never give an inch on this point, even those who believe in something called "theistic evolution."
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong, no matter how many times you say it. Science can only reject supernatural agency if it can consider supernatural agency, and (as we all agree), it cannot do that.And since science only deals with scientific explanation, it rejects supernatural agency.
But rejecting and ignoring are two different activities. In science, you reject a hypothesis when you conclude that it is wrong (or at least unlikely to be correct). You don't do that when you ignore a hypothesis; if you are unable to construct a test to distinguish two hypotheses, you simply cannot say anything about them. Those really are different conclusions.This isn't the reject of 'lets test it... oh it is false'. This IS the reject of 'lets tes... no wait, can't test it... ignoring it'.
So it is a disagreement of mostly semantics then.No. That is wrong. But one word can be changed to make it right.
Change the word worthy to capable. And since science cant deal with this it isnt capable of... why look into the question?
Exactly right.
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO WRONG.
I have no opinion on X does not equal I actively have an opinion against X.
Metherion
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong, no matter how many times you say it. Science can only reject supernatural agency if it can consider supernatural agency, and (as we all agree), it cannot do that.
But rejecting and ignoring are two different activities. In science, you reject a hypothesis when you conclude that it is wrong (or at least unlikely to be correct). You don't do that when you ignore a hypothesis; if you are unable to construct a test to distinguish two hypotheses, you simply cannot say anything about them. Those really are different conclusions.
You really have that presumption? For every possible statement about the existence of something in the universe, if you don't actively have an opinion that it's true, you assume that it's false by default? Do you actively believe that there is a man named John pouring a shot of tequila in Palo Alto, California, right now? Probably not. So you are of the opinion that there is not a man named John pouring tequila? Why? How do you deal with exhaustive probabilities? I am not actively of the opinion that I have any particular HLA type (an important set of blood markers), since there are many alleles at that locus and I have no idea what I have, but it would be pretty silly of me to have the opinion for each of the possibilities that I didn't have it, since I must have some HLA type.This is true in most cases. But when X is 'existence of Y', I see them as the same, at least for me, because if I don't actively have an opinion that Y exist, then I passively have the opinion it does not.
I find it hard to believe that anyone does this.Maybe not everyone does this though.
Since the contents of our beliefs about science differs, I fail to see how it could be labeled semantic.I would personally call this (once again) a semantics disagreement.
True science cannot look at dead life forms that existed in fossil records or skeletal bones that are dug up and determine to a high degree of accuracy how or if they evolved, especially if this evolution process required creator Gods involvement.
True science can only look at life forms as they exist today, and determine to a high degree of accuracy how they tick. True science can discover how to take inanimate matter and develop inanimate matter into useful life products. True science can discover how to help sick creatures get well, either thru medicines, surgeries, or learning how to maintain better physical health by what we eat and thru proper exercise.
True science cannot determine to a high degree of accuracy how life forms developed that show up the fossil records or bones that are millions of years old; i.e., true science cannot determine if life evolved thru evolution, theistic evolution, or by instant creation of every life form that God then gave the ability of procreation to.
True science cannot fully determine the how of Gods creation came to be, how the universe then evolved over time from the beginning, and especially how life on earth came to be since God first placed life on planet earth. This knowledge is beyond the purview of scientific discovery.
Godless evolutionists will tolerate somewhat theistic evolutionists, but not to the point of ever allowing theistic evolution in our biology textbooks.
Those who believe as I do in the instant fully-formed creation of every life form that existed are an anathema to evolutionists because they do not want there to be a Creator God like that, a God to whom they might then be accountable.
My personal opinion is that theistic evolution is nothing more than putting a little sugar/levin on godless evolution, which has no redemptive valve whatsoever in leading sinner man to his Redemptive Creator God.
[/FONT]
Yet there is never a case of it leading to theistic implication. The mere fact 'we don't know how it happened' does not lead to 'God/some theistic being did it.'
The FACT is "we DO know how it happened" and so we are not appealing
to ignorance.
The FACT that information comes from an Intelligent Source is NOT an
appeal to ignorance. I would easily assert the Law of Information and
open it up for falsification.
If you can create complex information that is useful from random
processes, THEN you have falsified the Law of Information.
Just as Mike Behe has opened up Intelligent Design for falsification,
so also I would say that the Law of Information is falsifiable.
We DO know where DNA/RNA came from...and the only ignorance is
coming from those who deny theistic implication and "ignore" where
the evidence points to.... it is NOT an appeal to ignorance because
we are NOT claiming we don't know.
This is something that only those who have a false definition for
science have done.
Theistic evolution doesn't belong in textbooks because the theistic part is not scientific.
But all the evidence shows it does.As a Christian, I will try one last time to share what I believe is the deception of how life somehow evolves, theistic or not, from the first life form to the various species we can observe in the fossil records/bones, and on to the various life forms that exist today
But you have not defined true science, high degree of accuracy, or explained why true science cannot do what you claim it cannot do.True science cannot look at dead life forms that existed in fossil records or skeletal bones that are dug up and determine to a high degree of accuracy how or if they evolved, especially if this evolution process required creator Gods involvement.
Take out the word only and the rest of this is correct.True science can only look at life forms as they exist today, and determine to a high degree of accuracy how they tick. True science can discover how to take inanimate matter and develop inanimate matter into useful life products. True science can discover how to help sick creatures get well, either thru medicines, surgeries, or learning how to maintain better physical health by what we eat and thru proper exercise.
Again, you have not defined high degree of accuracy or explained why say, forensics can work for crimes but not evolution, genetics, and other things.True science cannot determine to a high degree of accuracy how life forms developed that show up the fossil records or bones that are millions of years old; i.e., true science cannot determine if life evolved thru evolution, theistic evolution, or by instant creation of every life form that God then gave the ability of procreation to.
And why is that?True science cannot fully determine the how of Gods creation came to be, how the universe then evolved over time from the beginning, and especially how life on earth came to be since God first placed life on planet earth. This knowledge is beyond the purview of scientific discovery.
But then again, God cant be in the science textbooks as God is not scientific. If God and TE did appear in the textbooks, I would cry foul.Godless evolutionists will tolerate somewhat theistic evolutionists, but not to the point of ever allowing theistic evolution in our biology textbooks.
Those who believe as I do in the instant fully-formed creation of every life form that existed are an anathema to evolutionists because they do not want there to be a Creator God like that, a God to whom they might then be accountable.
Well, its a good thing thats only your opinion. And what a wrong opinion it is!My personal opinion is that theistic evolution is nothing more than putting a little sugar/levin on godless evolution, which has no redemptive valve whatsoever in leading sinner man to his Redemptive Creator God.
No, not really, because the two sentences have completely different meanings.lawtonfogle said:So it is a disagreement of mostly semantics then.
But when X is 'existence of Y', I see them as the same, at least for me, because if I don't actively have an opinion that Y exist, then I passively have the opinion it does not.
Since the contents of our beliefs about science differs, I fail to see how it could be labeled semantic.
But logic doesnt work that way.
If X is evidence for the existence of Y, and I have no opinion on X, then by exstention I have no opinion on Y. Saying I dont know about X does NOT lead to Then Y must be wrong, it leads to So continuing on that vein of thought I do not know about Y either.
Metherion
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?