The Scientific Method & Macroevolution?

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Well aware of the recreational use, but that would hardly justify ownership of a rocket launcher, now would it (well aware that they aren't legal for regular citizens to own in any country I can think of, and the reason being how dangerous they are)?

Yet, I can understand why kids might want to own hard-core weapons -- we are living in a very violent world, in an extremely violent time. Violence seems to be all that we see on the news, read in the papers and on social networks. It's viral, but it's also really happening.
What does one say to a child who joins the Preppers and begins stock piling?

~~~
True or False? : Russia Has Constructed Massive Underground Shelters In Anticipation Of Nuclear War ( here )

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I'm pretty sure this is what David meant by "the joy of thy salvation."

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

That initial moment when cognitive dissonance dissolves away, and things become crystal clear.

Just prior to getting saved, my wife an I had a serious discussion on such topics as:

1. gun control
2. premarital s_x
3. abortion
4. death penalty
5. open marriage
6. drugs & alcohol
7. homosexuality

All those vanished at the moment of conversion.

In addition, we experienced what Paul calls:

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

Vanished?
What about the silly scientific method and the over my head Evolution?

I've never understood why followers of Jesus need weapons to survive down here.

 

[Davian]

My life. You'd have to walk a mile in my shoes to get it, and seriously dude I don't see you doing that.

No methodology - a nice way to ditch your own thread.

Introspection, then. Are you infallible?

Doubt plays a very definite roll in my life. As explained (in earlier comments), I sometimes wake up with as much faith as tiny seed, but with a little watering it springs to life again and so on and so forth.

A "rock" that can dwindle to a 'tiny seed' on a daily basis. That is some 'rock' you have there.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No methodology - a nice way to ditch your own thread.

Introspection, then. Are you infallible?

My methodology is sound. If you want to come and visit me and we can spend a few months engaged in Contemplative prayer (etc) -- you'll be as sure about this as I am. No snake oil, just a matter of walking with someone who is walking with someone who science cannot touch, feel or see. (or you can go to 'Still Mountain Retreats' / Father John Michael Talbot's got something going up there at his spot -- I think for families )

As I said, examining aspects of religion/belief etc, there is certainly enough science for that. (read back please)

Nope, not infallible. (my second comment should make that clear)

A "rock" that can dwindle to a 'tiny seed' on a daily basis. That is some 'rock' you have there.

Sure. It's just how my life is. I can't change the fact that I experience times when I doubt things. It's natural and it's healthy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Vanished?
What about the silly scientific method and the over my head Evolution?

I've never understood why followers of Jesus need weapons to survive down here.

Fair enough, if I believed in eternal bliss after I died, I would never be worried about death and probably not material wealth or anything that ties me to my living existence. I fear death because I view it as the end of my existence; why be afraid of anything that would send one to paradise?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Fair enough, if I believed in eternal bliss after I died, I would never be worried about death and probably not material wealth or anything that ties me to my living existence. I fear death because I view it as the end of my existence; why be afraid of anything that would send one to paradise?

That's the passive side to it, sort of Garfield Light (or am I thinking of OD) -- I was thinking more along the lines of the trenches, armed to the teeth with weapons not forged by human hands. I know this is a little 'out-there', but I saw the topic of 'fasting' and 'spiritual warfare' brought up on this forum and properly used these are more powerful than any nuclear stuff. Being part of a Kingdom not of this world, I have access to weaponry that can .... (I know that you've heard this before)
There is a far more sublime doctrine about Christian Pacifism*, but I don't want to be laughed off this board.

~~~
* You can take it up with Prof. Ben Witherington, he's online at Patheos: The Long Journey of a Christian Pacifist

 

[Davian]

My methodology is sound. If you want to come and visit me and we can spend a few months engaged in Contemplative prayer (etc) -- you'll be as sure about this as I am. No snake oil, just a matter of walking with someone who is walking with someone who science cannot touch, feel or see. (or you can go to 'Still Mountain Retreats' / Father John Michael Talbot's got something going up there at his spot -- I think for families )

Sounds nice, but a failure as a "methodology".

As I said, examining aspects of religion/belief etc, there is certainly enough science for that. (read back please)

Where do gods show up, scientifically?

Nope, not infallible. (my second comment should make that clear)

Then your fallible introspection is dismissed as such.

Sure. It's just how my life is. I can't change the fact that I experience times when I doubt things. It's natural and it's healthy.

Then the "rock" analogy is dropped?

 

[SkyWriting]

A. WHAT EXACTLY IS: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

In my signature is the best answer.

But in my own words, "the ability to treat a point or "fact"
in a questioning manner and reproduce the original observation
and consider it's accuracy and question it's application
and the original observers conclusion from a hostile
point of view. "

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Sounds nice, but a failure as a "methodology".

I have found it to be sound, but this thread is not about my prayer methodology. A convenient dodge, it is about discovering the limits of the scientific methodology, in particular exploring Macroevolution.

Where do gods show up, scientifically?

Why would you assume such a thing would occur scientifically. The link I provided is about exploring the experience of religion, not divinity or deity (such a quest is a fool's errand for the scientific methodology)

Then your fallible introspection is dismissed as such.

You are a very slow learner.

Then the "rock" analogy is dropped?

The rock analogy stands, as it is not subject to the scientific method which as any scientist of substance will explain has limitations.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

In my signature is the best an'swer.

But in my own words, "the ability to treat a point or "fact"
in a questioning manner and reproduce the original observationni
and consider it's accuracy and question it's application
and the original observers conclusion from a hostile
point of view. "

Yes, I see that:

Believe Him
or Not!

​

It is the first step of the spiritual method, 'for without faith it is impossible to please God (the same one taught of in the New Testament)', yet it must be coupled with 'godly sorrow'. (and water baptism?)

I've had a look at your link before, but why not present a summary of what you have (which relates to this thread) instead of answering by link.

NB:
This thread is about the limits of the scientific method and in particular how that applies to studying Evolution, particularly Macroevolution.

 

[Strathos]

Why are we talking about gun control here again?

 

[crjmurray]

Why are we talking about gun control here again?

This forum is a mix of right wing bible thumpers and leftist hippies. Gun control is gonna pop up here and there.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Why are we talking about gun control here again?

It was part of comment by AV, for which I am still awaiting a reply: here

 

[AV1611VET]

It was part of comment by AV, for which I am still awaiting a reply: here

What exactly do you want answered?

Or are you just trying to dilute my comment with questions?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

This forum is a mix of right wing bible thumpers and leftist hippies. Gun control is gonna pop up here and there.

 

[Davian]

I have found it to be sound, but this thread is not about my prayer methodology. A convenient dodge, it is about discovering the limits of the scientific methodology, in particular exploring Macroevolution.

It seems all you do is dodge.

Why would you assume such a thing would occur scientifically. The link I provided is about exploring the experience of religion, not divinity or deity (such a quest is a fool's errand for the scientific methodology)

What is the difference? It's all religion.

You are a very slow learner.

Back to the insults.

The rock analogy stands, as it is not subject to the scientific method which as any scientist of substance will explain has limitations.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to investigate reality, but all the others have been tried.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

reality,

The scientific method is good for reality, but go outside of that frame and it begins to stammer.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

What is the difference? It's all religion.

No it's not all religion. This is something that I notice that quite a few of you chaps on this forum seem to be unable to process.
Arguments for the existence of God is not religion. Religion assumes the existence of God. This has been my point from day one. You only have to read the Apostle's Creed and you'll understand. It is an assumed belief, not one that can be proven. If you've ever engaged in that sort of debate, you'll know that it ends up getting nowhere.
However, examine the religious experience and we are doing science. (refer my previous link about this - I will put the link: here)

 

[Davian]

The scientific method is good for reality, but go outside of that frame and it begins to stammer.

Gods are not part of reality? That would explain why they are so elusive.

 

[Davian]

No it's not all religion.

No one seems to care about the gods that do not involve some sort of religion.

This is something that I notice that quite a few of you chaps on this forum seem to be unable to process.

I can only process what has been presented.

Arguments for the existence of God is not religion.

Was the Little Dutch Boy's finger a part of the dyke?

Religion assumes the existence of God. This has been my point from day one. You only have to read the Apostle's Creed and you'll understand. It is an assumed belief, not one that can be proven.

I am not asking for proof. I'd go for something small, testable, falsifiable; something to show that we are not simply dealing with characters in books.

If you've ever engaged in that sort of debate, you'll know that it ends up getting nowhere.

I would consider debates to be a very poor method of exploring reality.

However, examine the religious experience and we are doing science. (refer my previous link about this - I will put the link: here)

Of course there will always be some "Johnny Come Lately" trying to give an explanation of 'religion'. In fact, there are a number of branches of study which explore that, however tests for divinity, deity and such are not within the province of science.

Some of those branches of study fall into the following categories:

a. Brain/biological functioning
b. Genetics
c. Evolution
d. Psychological factors

If such concepts are simply simply human constructs, then they are all within the realm of science. We can explore how the brain believes, in the absence of evidence for those beliefs.

There doesn't need to be actual deities for humans to have such beliefs.

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
Richard Feynman (1918-1988)*



~~~
* 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

Certainty is not indication of accuracy. There are plenty of religionists here that appear very certain of their positions, even when they conflict with the others. They cannot all be right (and they certainly could all be wrong).