Posted on 06/20/2009 6:50:28 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Ok - I won't. I will say that science constantly changes as new information is added - that is its strength and vitality. Religions on the other hand, are static.
So what? Why is that relevant? I called you a child to draw attention to your sophomoric style of debate.
If you want to accuse theists (at least Christians) of being childlike, you are in fact consistent with *their* claims -- Christ himself said whoever does not receive the Kingdom of Heaven like a child, will never enter it. Matthew 18:3 or Mark 10:15.
You might want to look up “supernatural”, because what is perceived as such IS “made up”.
Repeating your unsubstantiated assertion does not prove it. You claimed that the supernatural is "made up". But you haven't backed it up.
Not sure what you meant about crucifixion; pretty common Roman torture/execution device.
It was a common Roman torture/execution device, which was my point: the word excruciating is synonymous with relentless, unendurable pain.
Goes back to your use of the word "stark" -- which I suggested you used as a vague term of self-approbation, and which characterization you did not dispute. The point is that the symbol of Christianity is that of someone being tortured to death, which is itself pretty stark.
If I had a dollar for every person crucified, I be a rich man.
Do you mean like the followers of Spartacus?
Cheers!
You've likened me to a homosexual activist to illustrate my alleged ad hominem attacks;
You accuse me of begging the question when I ask for evidence other than divine revelation;
And you've used name calling in condemning my "sophomoric style".
Do you notice a trend? I think it's what the psychologists call "projection". I don't know how grey your whiskers are, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of maturity behind them.
Oh, Cheers!
You've likened me to a homosexual activist to illustrate my alleged ad hominem attacks;
Yes, because homosexuals engage in ad hominem, as do anthropogenic global warming proponents. I explained this in post #30.
Calling you out on using ad hominem is not itself ad hominem. Saying (as you did) "It's hard for me to believe anyone could be that stupid. " (post 15) or " Your Jeddi tricks won’t work on me." (post 18) ARE ad hominem.
You accuse me of begging the question when I ask for evidence other than divine revelation;
In our disputations, you have not asked me for evidence other than divine revelation. On the contrary (see for example posts 35 and 40 this thread), you continually asserted, without adducing further evidence, that the supernatural *is* made up.
When I pointed out that this was not sufficient, you did not rectify the omission.
I'm not going out of my way to argue *for* theim: I'm waiting for you to post a cogent case *against* it. And the rudiments of the case you posted to me (say in post 29) look like circular reasoning or begging the question, as in this paraphras:
"Religion is wrong, because it involves the supernatural. The supernatural is made up, because it is associated with religion. And we know already that religion is wrong."
And you've used name calling in condemning my "sophomoric style".
It is sophomoric of you to tell your opponent that "I'm sorry, but I'm not the one with an invisible friend in the sky." and consider that that is necessary and sufficient grounds to settle the matter.
Do you notice a trend? I think it's what the psychologists call "projection". I don't know how grey your whiskers are, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of maturity behind them.
I explained in Post 30 why I made the characterizations of you that I did: and I did not pretend that merely giving such a characterization rendered all of your positions null and void; I just pointed out that by relying on ad hominem you fell short of the evidentiary standards you apparently insist on from others.
I'm still waiting for you to prove that all instances of the supernatural are only human constructs.
Oh, Cheers!
“Engineers can learn a great deal from studying today’s copies of the biological systems that were created roughly 6,000 years ago.”
Do you agree with that statement (and all it implies)?
No it isn't. You said that all claims of the supernatural were invented by people, and I asked you to back it up.
So far, you haven't backed up your statement, nor have you retracted, nor have you given additional information.
Let's go back to the original claim:“Engineers can learn a great deal from studying today’s copies of the biological systems that were created roughly 6,000 years ago.”
Do you agree with that statement (and all it implies)?
"I agree that engineers can learn a great deal from studying today's copies of biological systems..."
Otherwise, why have biochemists or molecular biology, or kinesiology?
"...that were created roughly 6,000 years ago."
I don't know if they were created roughly 6,000 years ago or not. There are a number of non-trivial problems involved in this.
If you are referring to Genesis, then you have to consider:
a) whether God exists
b) whether God inspired Genesis
c) if Genesis was intended literally
d) if Genesis was intended as allegorical, metaphorical, or as a legend to instill moral values
e) if Genesis is still in substantially the same form as originally
f) if Genesis *was* meant as literal, whether or not we know the state the Universe was created in (brand new, or with some supernovae, old stars, bones, etc. spotted in here or there already)
g) what, if any effect the Fall of Man, or even (see Tolkein) the fall of Lucifer had on the material world
h) Whether or not any supernatural agents screwed around with the original blueprints, or the appearance of things after the fact, or interfered unpredictably with the laws of nature in the meantime
Only if we have a straight run of "yes" or "no" answers to most or all of these, does the answer come out as the strawman characterizations so prevalent on crevo threads--and which I assume you were waiting with bated breath to skewer me on.
And of course, you then have the hermeneutic problems of falsifiability, the uniformity of the laws of nature (correleation necessarily implies causation, or "empirical induction") and methodological vs. philosophical naturalism to muck up the water.
Cheers!
That's right they are. Their assertions don't need to change. They give all the information that is necessary to complete their own central thesis, and that's all.
I don't know of any of them that give concrete details concerning creation, and some don't bother to provide conclusive answers to animals plants and such. However, what they do offer, is something that science can't, and that is enough of an explanation so that one can find meaning in life. And when it's all said and done, isn't that what everyone is looking for, really?
You might as well face the fact, that Science (as you correctly stated) is constantly evolving, therefore it's safe to say that no one can ever be completely satisfied with it's findings on anything. So, if you think that science can answer your deepest questions of creation beyond a shadow of a doubt, then I'm afraid your the one who is deluded my friend.
But even if they eventually could, I'm afraid that neither you nor I will ever live long enough to know about it!
Back atcha! Now that's what I'm talkin about.
Such a definition begs the question.
Can you provide a valid example of non-empirical reality?
But here's my fundamental question for you (which you will no doubt provide some non-answer answer): Are you a Young Earth Creationist?
Simple questions deserve simple answers - yes or no?
Simple answers are often misleading.
I don't think we can tell definitively without knowing whether God cooked the books.
Cheers!
Human engineers are God?
All those channels and nothing but junk! lol Thanks for a real stake in the heart article, GGG. Bob
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.