Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Are you suggesting it is difficult to use the methods of science to prove or disprove intervention by a supernatural agent?
You know- GGG politely invited you and any other scientist to join htis thread and to see if you or anyone else could poke holes i nthe claims, and a couple of poeple have been trying, politely, and without petty little insults for htem ost part, and we’ve been having a pretty good conversation, until you showed up and started spamming hte thread with you pat “Creationists are anti-science” DU accusations, and your totally irrelevent charts about ‘transitional skulls’ that have been refuted many times here on FR. GGG asked that the topic remain on topic, but you sir ignored his request, and instead came in tryign to derail the thread- and when that didn’t work, you then appeal to the owner complaining about being ‘treated badly’ by us evil ‘antiscience’ ‘fundamentalists’ who you claim ‘give science a bad name’
Not once did you offer ANY rebuttal to the threads topic- not once! All you do lately is insult Christians.
Coyoteman- I personally don’t want you to go anywhere- I’d like it if you stayed, BUT, I’ve quite had enough of hte pettiness coming from you, and then the turn-faced claims that you are the oen that is being ‘picked on’. I’ve asked you many times to try to post without the usual insults, and just post what you beleive to be the science, but apaprently you (And htose ‘real scientists’ who apparently were ‘driven out’) simply aren;t willing to do this, because apparentlym, the only defense you have left is to attack those that bring the message that refutes and rebuttals your position.
[[Are you suggesting it is difficult to use the methods of science to prove or disprove intervention by a supernatural agent?]]
I wouldn’t suggest that- Any forensic scientist can infer intelligent agents- and given hte right evidence, can even determine the necessity of the supernatural IF there is both enough evidence to show natural causes aren’t sufficient, and if enough evidnece shows enough clues that supernatural causes were involved.
You too?
We’ve had a VERY civil discussion here for nearly 1000 posts now, UNTIL you and Dr.Mike showed up
Actually, Cott, while most posters on this thread have been civil, you have taken an uncivil tone through the thread...from your post 408 to me...
you’ve shown you have nothign(sic) either relevent(sic) nor itnellectually(sic) honest to brign(sic)to the table
Radio Astronomer was banned because of his own behavior. On the last thread he was posting on, he was being warned by others to tone it down and he was arguing with them.
He had a tendency to post some really nasty posting guideline violating material at other FReepers.
There are other evolutionists who were banned for similar reasons. The whole nonsense about being banned because of supporting evolution is just that-nonsense. There are plenty of people who support evolution who are here yet, yourself included.
There are also plenty more scientists who are still here and are still conservative. No way is this an anti-science site.
This scientist is proud to be a member of FR. Those that aren’t can go back to DC where they’re more than welcome. I fail to see why you’re so intent on staying and controlling FR if you find it so objectionable. If FR isn’t good enough for you, make DC into the kind of pro-science conservative site you’re looking for. If that is really the kind of face that conservatism is becoming, then DC should just be taking off.
Christianity isn’t a “narrow fundamentalist brand of religion”. It’s what this nation was founded on and getting back to those values and mores is not “true kookdom, headed for the fringe”. It represents a huge chunk of this country yet.
As far as comparisons, creationists are regularly compared to islamist terrorists and the Taliban (another reason some of the evos were banned). Then there’s the dominionist nonsense that you complain about. The screeds about being burned at the stake and taking us back to the Dark Ages. Cry me a river over the name calling. Both sides are equally guilty and in no position to point any fingers. There have also been creationists banned for that kind of behavior, to set the record straight. There’s no way to pretend that the bannings have all been one sided.
It’s equally difficult to use those methods to prove or disprove a naturalistic, non-supernatural agent.
The amount of difficulty involved in proving or disproving a supernatural agent does not imply a materialistic naturalism by default.
Good luck. I've been following the debate for 40 years. My first encounter with creationism was in a magazine called the Plain Truth, published by Herbert W. Armstrong.
The first issue I saw had an article on DNA and explained why mutations are impossible. I haven't seen much progress in the movement since then, except to pretend that earlier silly positions never existed.
I'm confident that when a pathway to RNA is demonstrated that does not require external direction, you will have a ready explanation as to why it is irrelevant.
Naturalism is the default because it minimises the number of entities required to account for phenomena. It’s kind of a rule in science.
Once you postulate an entity that can do anything for any reason, you have no motive to look for regularities.
OK, it’s not proof of anything, but it leads to cool things like digital watches, computers and anesthesia.
[[Actually, Cott, while most posters on this thread have been civil, you have taken an uncivil tone through the thread...from your post 408 to me...]]
Yes mister innocent- do cry wolf
[[Naturalism is the default because it minimises the number of entities required to account for phenomena.]]
Sciecne has to minimize entities? Especially in the face of evidnece that suggests an entity?
[[Once you postulate an entity that can do anything for any reason, you have no motive to look for regularities.]]
Says who? How would forensics work then? Once we posit an intellgience was needed, who could have done hte crime any way they liked, then we have no motive to look for regularities?
Are you suggestign that an entity can’t leave His mark?
Believing in a single real Creator can lead to cool things like Newton discovered because he had reason to look for regularities.
That can lead to cool things like the scientific method and calculus.
And while you're doing that, I'll continue to reflect on your simply wonderful essay-post, dear CottShop!
“Ben Stein is likewise a Creationist and produced a movie proclaiming so for erroneous reasons which have been disproven time after time, here and elsewhere. Moreover, he drew erroneous conclusions (which I've illustrated in previous posts in this forum).” [excerpt]Dream on my dear doctor, dream on!
“However, producing a movie or owning a website doesn't make either of them right.” [excerpt]Come to think of it, owning a fine personal computer doesn't make you right either.
“Once again personally, I find it incomprehensible that both their Faiths are so weak as to be so disturbed by a Fact.” [excerpt]I do fear my good FRiend, that it is you who is disturbed by the facts.
“Nonetheless globally, to take Conservatism down this path marginalizes it (and them) at best. I'm trying to save them from themselves.” [excerpt]My FRiend, we already have a savior.
“Kinda pretentious dontchathink.” [excerpt]Not at all!
All that I have to add is this: one cannot say something is random in the system when he doesn't know what the system "is."
And we do not know and cannot know the full number and types of dimensions (space, time) which exist.
Or to put it another way, scientists speak of a natural phenomenon being "random" when what they really mean is that it is "unpredictable" or "unknowable."
In mathematics, the term is much more precise and misappropriating the term in science misleads, probably to the delight of the metaphysical naturalists who would like everyone to believe all that exists is physical and the result of pure, blind chance.
Therefore I submit the term "randomness" should not be used in postulates for scientific theories.
BUMP!
Truth needs no defense...It is a lion that simply needs to be let out of its cage. — Charles Spurgeon
Important principles may and must be inflexible. — Abraham Lincoln
Why is it so hard for atheists to understand that this country was founded on Christian principles, by Christians? Why do they think that their left-wing propaganda would be tolerated on an American pro-God website? I just don’t get it.
I do understand, though, why management decides to let some stay here despite the vileness of their posts. It’s good, as Rush said of Communists in colleges, to keep a few around just so people know what they look like. Like a pet. Not too many, mind you. But a few.
Overall though they need to be rooted out like a bad infestation of fleas. Just need a little bug-zapper.
Naturalism is default because people don't want to deal with entities. Choosing the God of the Bible also minimizes the number of entities (or choices) required to account for phenomena.
Once you postulate an entity that can do anything for any reason, you have no motive to look for regularities.
Not true. A rational, logical entity is going to be capable of creating a rational, logical, orderly universe capable of being studied in a rational, logical order. That doesn't preclude him nor does it give any reason to accept the non-creator position by default.
While an entity is capable of doing anything for any reason, when he does, it disrupts the natural, logical, established order that he set up and is immediately recognized. Those things are called miracles.
OK, it’s not proof of anything, but it leads to cool things like digital watches, computers and anesthesia.
No, it isn't. It's merely a philosophical construct with no basis. And belief in a creative entity does not preclude the ability to apply knowledge in the form of technology.
There are implied and required magical processes, though. Such as the Accident Fairy, who transforms apes into NFL wide-receivers with swishes of her sparkly natural selection wand.
No, because necessity and chance are not mutually exclusive. It is an error, mostly propagated by Darwin and Huxley, to say that necessity rules out chance. That error has been absorbed by modern philosophy and almost everyone believes it now. The reason why evolutionists put chance and necessity in juxtaposition is so they can, by applying specious arguments, claim that evolution is not driven by chance, because the effects of evolution are determined by necessity and hence they are causal. And what is causal is not an accident, they say, as if accidents are presumed to be uncaused. Specious metaphysics like this must be rejected out of hand. Chance and accident in this context means not intentional, i.e., unplanned and undesigned. That is what it has always meant. It does not mean 'an uncaused effect' (which is how it is now used) because there are no uncaused effects.
This is a point of supreme importance, inattention to which is productive of much confusion. Evolutionist philosophers, who dislike above all things, and most naturally, the word "chance" in connexion with their system, are wont to contend that chance does not exist, because the effects we see necessarily follow from the efficient causes which produce them. Taking as proved the doctrine of the descent of one class of plants or animals by development from another, an assumption with which for present purposes we need not quarrel, they proceed to argue that, as each change affected in the process is the necessary result of the forces which effect it, the mechanical forces producing development are obviously sufficient to account for all those forms which they have in fact produced. As Dr. Oscar Schmidt puts it: If we start from the bird and go back to the reptile, we can trace the chain of effects and causes that changed the one into the other, a chain so compacted as to leave no room for chance...It would appear that to those who so confidently employ it, such an argument seems to have a meaning, especially when they talk, as does Dr. Schmidt, of the "quackery " and "jargon " of their opponents. Yet to what, after all, does their argument amount? Simply to this, that effects necessarily follow from their efficient causes; that, given the cause, we are sure of the effect. Of course we are.
John Gerard S.J.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.