- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,435
- 52,723
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I'm supposed to suspect the word of God because some guy named L. Frank Baum wrote a book of fiction?
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.
I'm supposed to suspect the word of God because some guy named L. Frank Baum wrote a book of fiction?Agreed -- the Bible contains some science and some history... but then again, so does The Wizard of Oz, so you might not want to hang your hat on it.
I'm supposed to suspect the word of God because some guy named L. Frank Baum wrote a book of fiction?
When I used to participate in the general C/E debate over a decade ago, a common refrain from the creationist/ID side was how evolutionary biology was doomed, more and more scientists were rejecting it, and that it would eventually be replaced by some sort of scientific creationism or ID.
None of this has obviously come to pass, with creationism/ID making zero dent against mainstream science. Not only that, but creationism has even been losing popular support insofar as USA polling goes.
All I really see from creationists these days when it comes to prognostications is run-of-the-mill apocalyptic prophesy.
Have creationists given up on overturning the scientific establishment? Is it now just a matter of sitting around, chanting about the evils of evolution and waiting for the world to end?
What is the end goal for creationists these days?
Just don't tell me It isn't a science book and expect me to disagree.Did I say that? I'm just saying that containing some science and history is hardly exclusive to the word of God.
Just don't tell me It isn't a science book and expect me to disagree.
Whoever elevated It that low earned his/her Ph.D.
This runs contrary to the scientific method as currently practised. You seem unaware that science practices methodological naturalism.I see another desirable thing, instead of asking of a goal for scientists who are creationist, as their pursuits are individual for them. It is for scientists generally to not exclude any consideration of the Creator from any explanations no matter what, without basis. The beautiful arrangement of everything implies design that does not leave other explanations that are pursued being better, with further bases for those.
Calling the Bible a science book is like calling Bill Gate's diary a computer manual.But it isn't a science book -- no more so than The Wizard of Oz.
Yes.TLK Valentine said:Expect you to disagree?
Yes.TLK Valentine said:Weren't you just agreeing that it wasn't a science book, only that it contained some science?
The confusion here, over slightly obscure syntax, reminds me of the English lecturer who declared in class, "While there are many examples of double negatives, we never see or hear a double positive."Calling the Bible a science book is like calling Bill Gate's diary a computer manual.
Yes.
If you tell me the Bible is not a science book ... and expect me to disagree with that ... you've got another think coming.
Yes.
LOL -- but we're dealing with a professor of literature here, who should have caught that.The confusion here, over slightly obscure syntax, reminds me of the English lecturer who declared in class, "While there are many examples of double negatives, we never see or hear a double positive."
From the back of the lecture theatre came a bored, "Yeah . . . . Right."
It is a ...The bible is a glimpse into the mind of a despot.
Calling the Bible a science book is like calling Bill Gate's diary a computer manual.
Yes.
If you tell me the Bible is not a science book ... and expect me to disagree with that ... you've got another think coming.
Yes.
Thebeautiful arrangement of everything implies design that does not leave other explanations that are pursued being better, with further bases for those.
The "designer" is scary, if nothing else. Have you ever seen a video of those massive parasite worms coming out of insects and arachnids? It would take a disturbed mind to come up with that one.The chaotic, brutal realities of biology imply that if 'design' is real, then the designer was a sadistic thug.
I see another desirable thing, instead of asking of a goal for scientists who are creationist, as their pursuits are individual for them. It is for scientists generally to not exclude any consideration of the Creator from any explanations no matter what, without basis. The beautiful arrangement of everything implies design that does not leave other explanations that are pursued being better, with further bases for those.
Ophiolite said:This runs contrary to the scientific method as currently practised. You seem unaware that science practices methodological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism declares that science will seek natural explanations for phenomena. It does not rule out the possibility of the supernatural, but declares that such events are outwith the scope of science.
In essence, if the supernatural explanation is entertained it minimises the motivation to look further for a natural explanation. That rather defeats the purpose of science.
Moreover, phenomena previously assigned to the action of God, or gods, have been found to have natural explanations. Methodological naturalism just works on the basis that phenomena that are currently unexplained can be found, through diligent investigation, to have a natural basis.
That said, in pursuing this approach, evidence of the supernatural would be likely to appear. Despite claims to the contrary (for example, so called irreducible complexity) nothing of substance has been identified thus far.
Naturalistic explanations are not being sought in order to exclude the supernatural. Explanations are being sought which can be verified with empirial evidence. Period. If someday empirical evidence is discovered which points to the supernatural, then it will become part of the explanation.If natural explanations are sought for everything, that is excluding design that there is, and the Creator, some things can be concluded wrongly even with such exclusion.
Not all explanations are created equal. Few rise to the status of a scientific theory like evolution. For the time being, multiple universes are no more than speculation on the part of scientists working to construct a theory.The explanation with multiple universes for instance has no evidence for basis and is with just such exclusion. That is outside the realm of natural explanations, with no verification.
This runs contrary to the scientific method as currently practised. You seem unaware that science practices methodological naturalism.
Methodological naturalism declares that science will seek natural explanations for phenomena. It does not rule out the possibility of the supernatural, but declares that such events are outwith the scope of science.
In essence, if the supernatural explanation is entertained it minimises the motivation to look further for a natural explanation. That rather defeats the purpose of science.
Moreover, phenomena previously assigned to the action of God, or gods, have been found to have natural explanations. Methodological naturalism just works on the basis that phenomena that are currently unexplained can be found, through diligent investigation, to have a natural basis.
That said, in pursuing this approach, evidence of the supernatural would be likely to appear. Despite claims to the contrary (for example, so called irreducible complexity) nothing of substance has been identified thus far.
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?