It was just as much a joke as what I replied to.
That was out of the blue..Misinformation? Where did that come from? And where did you get the idea I was holding you responsible for anything?
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.
But we're not trying to trick you, just explain to you how scientists are used to using the words, as an aid to promoting clear discussion. We're not responsible for any misinformation you may have picked up, from the popular press, or bad science teachers or creationist websites, or for things you simply don't know.
Probably because they didn't rig votes back then, or pay off cruciverbalists and lexicographers to get their definitions into the dictionary.
Back then they had [a little more] morals than they do today.
Thanks to today's dictionaries, you can't tell the difference between a miracle and magic, a child in the womb has become a fetus, and morals and ethics are basically the same thing.
Say IN GOD WE TRUST or ONE NATION UNDER GOD, and they have no idea what God you're talking about.
Science has nothing to say about Jesus or His Gospel. Do you go to an auto mechanic when you want spiritual guidance? An accountant? Then why would you seek it from science?
No, I don't believe in individual understanding of scripture. The Bible was given to us as a community--Christ's church in the world, not to us as individuals. It takes the entire scholarly and spiritual efforts of the entire community to know it.You yourself said that was about individual understanding of scripture, right?
Just wondering why you guys don't salt your posts with Scripture.No, I don't believe in individual understanding of scripture. The Bible was given to us as a community--Christ's church in the world, not to us as individuals. It takes the entire scholarly and spiritual efforts of the entire community to know it.
This is science forum. Scripture has little to say about science.Just wondering why you guys don't salt your posts with Scripture.
I see a lot of "science says..." but little to no "Scripture says..."
How convenient. Your loyalty is noted.This is science forum. Scripture has little to say about science.
Please don't tell me what I am pointing out. I'll do my own pointing, thankyou. I'm basically saying, "If everything must have had a designer, why is the designer an exception"?
Separate points: 1) It is theologically dangerous to rely on gods of the gaps arguments. If a gap gets filled, you end up looking silly, and having nothing to base your faith upon. This is what has happened with evolution-denying creationism. 2) There is no good reason why the universe owes it to us to be comprehensible to us. Our ideas of what constitute "laws" and "logic" could well be very parochial. Much better to believe because you want to believe, (if you do).
I agree. In the words of Dawkins,
"Modern physics teaches us that there is more to truth than meets the eye, or more than meets the all-too-limited human mind, evolved as it was to cope with medium-size objects moving at medium speeds through medium distances in Africa. In the face of these profound and sublime mysteries, the low-grade intellectual poodling of pseudophilosophical poseurs seems unworthy of adult attention."
I think the entire problem with the "designer" argument can be summed up in a single, rather famous, statement:
"You can not explain the unexplained, with the inexplicable"
Because they actively lobby to impose their religious beliefs upon a secular society.
Any good patriot should oppose such activity.
No, I don't believe in individual understanding of scripture. The Bible was given to us as a community--Christ's church in the world, not to us as individuals. It takes the entire scholarly and spiritual efforts of the entire community to know it.
Your best example of this is?Science calls on the "god of the gaps" much more than does religion (ever read a science paper?).
You've been here far too long to not understand the difference between a "scientific theory" and the colloquial usage of "theory." Words can have different meanings in different contexts. You and I use the term "solution" in a different way than a chemist would. We should be able to move past this part of the discussion...Why does the dictionary define the term hypothesis and theory as the same thing, when you and another poster say they have different meanings?
Your best example of this is?
Well then it should be super easy to give a specific example if you have so many to choose from.Read any extensive paper on evolution. Suppositions are what stitch the whole theory together and fill in the gaps.
Well then it should be super easy to give a specific example if you have so many to choose from.
Please do; whatever point I was trying to make, I evidently didn't make it clearly.Pretty sure you stated it was a matter of comprehension the other day. I'll get back with you if I find the post.
I absolutely do.Do you disagree with my assertion?
So when someone is using a "god of the gaps" argument they are stating that a gap in our scientific knowledge is evidence for their god. I am asking for an example where "science" (this is really vague, maybe you can clarify this) calls on a "god of the gaps" type of argument. You claim such occurrences are plentiful, I shouldn't be asking too much from you.Science calls on the "god of the gaps" much more than does religion (ever read a science paper?).
I absolutely do.
So when someone is using a "god of the gaps" argument they are stating that a gap in our scientific knowledge is evidence for their god. I am asking for an example where "science" (this is really vague, maybe you can clarify this) calls on a "god of the gaps" type of argument. You claim such occurrences are plentiful, I shouldn't be asking too much from you.
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?