Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[AV1611VET]

No it doesn't.

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

When you have two sides of a coin, and people tend to only work with the side they can see and deny the other side, they're setting themselves up for serious errors.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

When you have two sides of a coin, and people tend to only work with the side they can see and deny the other side, they're setting themselves up for serious errors.

I demonstrated no point whatsoever.

You said: "Science has questions that the Bible answers in spades."

I simply replied: "No it doesn't."

 

[AV1611VET]

Just defaulting to it's "An act of God" is not in anyway close to science studying miracles.

You don't get it, do you?

Science ... can't ... study ... miracles.

Only their effects.

And that's assuming their effects are still around.

Was Supertyphoon that hit Guam in 1976 a miracle in accordance with ...

Psalm 83:15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.

Personally I don't think so, since we plotted that typhoon from its inception as a tropical depression.

But that doesn't mean ALL TYPHOONS are kickstarted naturally.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's your prerogative.

But realize that, by choosing to lean toward their 'forms of approach,' you're putting yourself at risk of agreeing with them when they make mistakes and have to cover for them later.

I've made it this far in faith since the age of 17, brother AV. I think the Lord is going to carry me beyond the grave as well. And what's more, my understanding of science and of the Bible doesn't require me to "cover over" anything. It's great how it works out that way for me, not that you need to follow suite with me though.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, if you're own 'embedded age' theory is getting you by, then that's fine by me. And I'm sincere in that. What I'd like in return is for you to respect the Lord working in my own understanding and not assume that Satan has his little fingers in every single piece of the pie within my mind simply because I have a different theoretical viewpoint than you do.

At the end of the day, you and I are still both conscious of following the Lord and of being very careful to avoid Satan's schemes.

There is no such thing as a scientist working "within creationism."

Sure there are. There's more than one form of Creationism that various Christians work by as well.

Unless by that, you meant a scientist working this side of reality, aka the physical realm.

Essentially, I'm referring to the physical realm, yes, but for Christians working via rational means rather than via purely empirical means, then additional factors may be utilized by them in forming their working theories that secularists don't utilize.

Whatever the case may be, I'm not trying to refute you, but just trying to explain the various options.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still does not make the Bible a history book. It's a book OF history, especially the history of the Jewish people as their ancients wrote it, but it's not A history book.

It's not a music book either.

Yet It contains the most beautiful songs on earth.

 

[AV1611VET]

I demonstrated no point whatsoever.

You said: "Science has questions that the Bible answers in spades."

I simply replied: "No it doesn't."

Then let me be blunt:

Yes It does.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It's not a music book either.

Yet It contains the most beautiful songs on earth.

The Psalms are good works of poetry.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then let me be blunt:

Yes It does.

I'll be blunter:

No.

 

[River Jordan]

This is where I have a major beef with science.

Their "reality" is limited to the physical world, and doesn't include the spiritual.

So when God performs/performed a miracle, and science analyzes that miracle with their myopic viewpoints, then it stands to reason their conclusions will be wrong.

Yes I'm aware of your views. The problem I have with them is that you're effectively wanting science to pick sides with religion by operating under not just the Bible (to the exclusion of all other religious works), but your particular interpretation of it (to the exclusion of all Christians who disagree with you).

 

[BCP1928]

Yes we do conduct science with presuppositions. In the grand scheme of things we presume that our observations reflect reality for example. More specific examples would include presumptions like that tagged organisms behave the same as their untagged counterparts, or that organisms generally behave the same in the lab as they do outside of it.

Not necessarily, at least not for want of scientists who know better. To that point I recommend Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg. It was a text for the required Philosophy of Science class I took as a freshman over 60 years ago. I remember that class particularly because as a brash and arrogant freshman I came into it one day and announced, "I've figured it out. You and all of you and the world I see sound me are all figures of my imagination. None of it is real." The class was shocked into silence at my outburst, because Brother Edmund was a crotchety old guy and reputed to be a hard grader. He was quiet for a moment, then he said, "Well, Mr ____, you may be right. What are you going to do about it?" When the meaning of what he said struck me, all I could do was laugh out loud. Brother Edmund just smiled and went on with the class as usual. I reread the Heisenburg book the other day as pertinent to some of your and Philo's comments. The other text was The Aim and Strcture of Physical Theory by Pierre Duhem which it appears I have lost, but I recommend it as well.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes I'm aware of your views. The problem I have with them is that you're effectively wanting science to pick sides with religion by operating under not just the Bible (to the exclusion of all other religious works), but your particular interpretation of it (to the exclusion of all Christians who disagree with you).

Do you realize, River, that the World Economic Forum is calling for AI to write a bible and create a new religion that they call "actually correct"?

If so, will you go with AI's "particular interpretation"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you realize, River, that the World Economic Forum is calling for AI to write a bible and create a new religion that they call "actually correct"?

If so, will you go with AI's "particular interpretation"?

Yep. But y'know, brother Alice Cooper had something to say about that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you realize, River, that the World Economic Forum is calling for AI to write a bible and create a new religion that they call "actually correct"?

If so, will you go with AI's "particular interpretation"?

Yeah, that's.... none of that's true at all.

The guy who talked about AI was talking about the power that dangers of AI could lead to if left unchecked, which would be including writing their own religious texts.

 

[River Jordan]

Not necessarily

Yes we do. We talk about our presumptions all the time.

To that point I recommend Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg. It was a text for the required Philosophy of Science class I took as a freshman over 60 years ago.

Have to be honest here, none of us care one whit about what any philosophers think about our work. We carry out our studies and publish our results. If anyone thinks we've made errors they're free to contact us and/or the journal and give us their input.

I remember that class particularly because as a brash and arrogant freshman I came into it one day and announced, "I've figured it out. You and all of you and the world I see sound me are all figures of my imagination. None of it is real." The class was shocked into silence at my outburst, because Brother Edmund was a crotchety old guy and reputed to be a hard grader. He was quiet for a moment, then he said, "Well, Mr ____, you may be right. What are you going to do about it?" When the meaning of what he said struck me, all I could do was laugh out loud. Brother Edmund just smiled and went on with the class as usual. I reread the Heisenburg book the other day as pertinent to some of your and Philo's comments. The other text was The Aim and Strcture of Physical Theory by Pierre Duhem which it appears I have lost, but I recommend it as well.

Good story. Thanks for sharing.

 

[River Jordan]

Do you realize, River, that the World Economic Forum is calling for AI to write a bible and create a new religion that they call "actually correct"?

If so, will you go with AI's "particular interpretation"?

No.

 

[BCP1928]

Do you realize, River, that the World Economic Forum is calling for AI to write a bible and create a new religion that they call "actually correct"?

If so, will you go with AI's "particular interpretation"?

We can't interpret the book until we have seen it and read it.

 

[SelfSim]

It's more a matter of discussion among philosophers of science, so that's where you'll find most of the discussions about it. But it's pretty standard knowledge in my experiences.

No. The notion you have claimed is conceived by means of a logical deduction which presupposes philosophically believed truths. These are untestable because they are beliefs.
There is nothing in the scientific method which makes the claims you are making.

Yes we do conduct science with presuppositions. In the grand scheme of things we presume that our observations reflect reality for example. More specific examples would include presumptions like that tagged organisms behave the same as their untagged counterparts, or that organisms generally behave the same in the lab as they do outside of it.

Here's an essay from Stanford that explores methodological vs philosophical naturalism: Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Here's one from Dr. Rusbult from the ASA: Philosophical & Methodological Naturalism - Science and Theology)

And here are search results from Google Scholar: Google Scholar

Nope .. all those references are based on philosophical positions and not on objectively tested evidence.
They are inconsistent arguments when viewed from science's inference based objective method.
This is a crucial matter to understand about science.
Injecting any philosophically held untestable tenets involving the existence of untestable truths, into science, is the most aggregious violation of the principles used in science I can think of.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, that's.... none of that's true at all.

The guy who talked about AI was talking about the power that dangers of AI could lead to if left unchecked, which would be including writing their own religious texts.

Here's what was actually said by Yuval Noah Harari..........................................

Go to minute mark ~ 7:30 to 9:00

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No. The notion you have claimed is conceived by means of a logical deduction which presupposes philosophically believed truths. These are untestable because they are beliefs.
There is nothing in the scientific method which makes the claims you are making.

Nope .. all those references are based on philosophical positions and not on objectively tested evidence.
They are inconsistent arguments when viewed from science's inference based objective method.
This is a crucial matter to understand about science.
Injecting any philosophically held untestable tenets involving the existence of untestable truths, into science, is the most aggregious violation of the principles used in science I can think of.

I could be wrong, but you sort of sound like you've been sipping the wine of the Logical Positivists.

 

[AV1611VET]

We can't interpret the book until we have seen it and read it.

But, hey ... it's science doing it this time.

Where's your faith?