Total Posts:51|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

YECs, how do you interprete this.

vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 2:41:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

God did it, God did it, God did it, God did it !!!!! Possibly Jesus did it, who is God.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 2:46:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 2:41:17 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

God did it, God did it, God did it, God did it !!!!! Possibly Jesus did it, who is God.

Actually YEC's don't have internet, so your argument is invalid.
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 2:49:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

There is a comprehensive set of systematic errors in the fundamental process and methodology of evolutionary science, Geology and astrophysics at it's most fundamental levels; this is not brought to the publics attention because evolutionary scientists, geologists and astrophysicists are dishonest and never show evidence that disagrees with their point of view.

The biggest proof of this, are the many scientific studies, examples, fossiles and the like that evolutionary scienctists, geologists and astrophysicists has brought up over many years that contradicts and challenges our current level of understanding of the world in those areas.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 2:53:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 2:49:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

There is a comprehensive set of systematic errors in the fundamental process and methodology of evolutionary science, Geology and astrophysics at it's most fundamental levels; this is not brought to the publics attention because evolutionary scientists, geologists and astrophysicists are dishonest and never show evidence that disagrees with their point of view.

The biggest proof of this, are the many scientific studies, examples, fossiles and the like that evolutionary scienctists, geologists and astrophysicists has brought up over many years that contradicts and challenges our current level of understanding of the world in those areas.

yea, jokes aside....there is serious gap in what we know and what we say we know.

I personally enjoy the honesty of these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 2:58:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 2:53:52 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:49:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

There is a comprehensive set of systematic errors in the fundamental process and methodology of evolutionary science, Geology and astrophysics at it's most fundamental levels; this is not brought to the publics attention because evolutionary scientists, geologists and astrophysicists are dishonest and never show evidence that disagrees with their point of view.

The biggest proof of this, are the many scientific studies, examples, fossiles and the like that evolutionary scienctists, geologists and astrophysicists has brought up over many years that contradicts and challenges our current level of understanding of the world in those areas.


yea, jokes aside....there is serious gap in what we know and what we say we know.

I personally enjoy the honesty of these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...

That's why science, biology, geology, astrophysics and the like are continuing to test, predict, experiment and observe things.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 3:10:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 2:58:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:53:52 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:49:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

There is a comprehensive set of systematic errors in the fundamental process and methodology of evolutionary science, Geology and astrophysics at it's most fundamental levels; this is not brought to the publics attention because evolutionary scientists, geologists and astrophysicists are dishonest and never show evidence that disagrees with their point of view.

The biggest proof of this, are the many scientific studies, examples, fossiles and the like that evolutionary scienctists, geologists and astrophysicists has brought up over many years that contradicts and challenges our current level of understanding of the world in those areas.


yea, jokes aside....there is serious gap in what we know and what we say we know.

I personally enjoy the honesty of these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...

That's why science, biology, geology, astrophysics and the like are continuing to test, predict, experiment and observe things.

Sure, but I wholeheartedly reject young earth creationism.
Not creationism in itself....but the young earth model most certainly. It is infuriatingly naive.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:00:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 3:10:00 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:58:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:53:52 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:49:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

There is a comprehensive set of systematic errors in the fundamental process and methodology of evolutionary science, Geology and astrophysics at it's most fundamental levels; this is not brought to the publics attention because evolutionary scientists, geologists and astrophysicists are dishonest and never show evidence that disagrees with their point of view.

The biggest proof of this, are the many scientific studies, examples, fossiles and the like that evolutionary scienctists, geologists and astrophysicists has brought up over many years that contradicts and challenges our current level of understanding of the world in those areas.


yea, jokes aside....there is serious gap in what we know and what we say we know.

I personally enjoy the honesty of these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...

That's why science, biology, geology, astrophysics and the like are continuing to test, predict, experiment and observe things.

Sure, but I wholeheartedly reject young earth creationism.
Not creationism in itself....but the young earth model most certainly. It is infuriatingly naive.

As an interesting asside, a counter "list" to the one linked is the following:

http://ncse.com...
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:34:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

I think there are some that fit into each of the categories that you mention, and there are probably more reasons that could be added. Whatever their personal motivations, the Bible refers to them as being willfully ignorant.

What goes through my mind when reading an article like that is just how easily convinced many people are of anything that helps them rationalize their existence, so long as that something doesn't involve an entity more powerful than themselves. I find it perplexing how so many people would rather believe that they descended from ape-like creatures, who came from some type of rodent, than accept that they were created in the image of God.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:40:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:00:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 3:10:00 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:58:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:53:52 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:49:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

There is a comprehensive set of systematic errors in the fundamental process and methodology of evolutionary science, Geology and astrophysics at it's most fundamental levels; this is not brought to the publics attention because evolutionary scientists, geologists and astrophysicists are dishonest and never show evidence that disagrees with their point of view.

The biggest proof of this, are the many scientific studies, examples, fossiles and the like that evolutionary scienctists, geologists and astrophysicists has brought up over many years that contradicts and challenges our current level of understanding of the world in those areas.


yea, jokes aside....there is serious gap in what we know and what we say we know.

I personally enjoy the honesty of these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...

That's why science, biology, geology, astrophysics and the like are continuing to test, predict, experiment and observe things.

Sure, but I wholeheartedly reject young earth creationism.
Not creationism in itself....but the young earth model most certainly. It is infuriatingly naive.

As an interesting asside, a counter "list" to the one linked is the following:

http://ncse.com...

That's a good link. I'll have to remember it the next time someone gives me there list of "dissenters".
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 4:42:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:34:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:

What goes through my mind when reading an article like that is just how easily convinced many people are of anything that helps them rationalize their existence, so long as that something does involve an entity more powerful than themselves. I find it perplexing how so many people would rather believe that they were created in the image of God, than accept that they descended from ape-like creatures, who came from some type of rodent.

FTFY
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:34:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

I think there are some that fit into each of the categories that you mention, and there are probably more reasons that could be added.

I'd love to hear them :)

Whatever their personal motivations, the Bible refers to them as being willfully ignorant.

What goes through my mind when reading an article like that is just how easily convinced many people are of anything that helps them rationalize their existence, so long as that something doesn't involve an entity more powerful than themselves. I find it perplexing how so many people would rather believe that they descended from ape-like creatures, who came from some type of rodent, than accept that they were created in the image of God.

Well, it's more than that they are convinced; the scientists involved in research like this have spent most of their lives trying to understand biology within the context of modern biological theories like natural selection.

What is it about a an entity more powerful than us (to use your words), that causes some people to want to deny its existence (as you would have it). The way you phrase it, it would sound like a comfort. Of course, the way the Bible, and other like-works phrase it, one is essentially compelled to acknowledge its existence or else face eternal torture.

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

Doesn't the fact that when people accept their "lowly" origins in preference to a more flattering theory of human origin, they are proving that they are grounding their beliefs in evidence, and not in wishful thinking? I would think that if you acknowledged that, you perplexity would vanish.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:34:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 2:53:52 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:49:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

There is a comprehensive set of systematic errors in the fundamental process and methodology of evolutionary science, Geology and astrophysics at it's most fundamental levels; this is not brought to the publics attention because evolutionary scientists, geologists and astrophysicists are dishonest and never show evidence that disagrees with their point of view.

The biggest proof of this, are the many scientific studies, examples, fossiles and the like that evolutionary scienctists, geologists and astrophysicists has brought up over many years that contradicts and challenges our current level of understanding of the world in those areas.


yea, jokes aside....there is serious gap in what we know and what we say we know.

I personally enjoy the honesty of these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...

PSA

It should be noted that this website, project, and links leading to "arguments" against Evolution are from the Discovery Institute, the Intelligent Design think tank composed of Philip Johnson, Michael Behe, and William Dembski among others.
MouthWash
Posts: 2,607
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:45:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:34:40 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

I think there are some that fit into each of the categories that you mention, and there are probably more reasons that could be added. Whatever their personal motivations, the Bible refers to them as being willfully ignorant.

What goes through my mind when reading an article like that is just how easily convinced many people are of anything that helps them rationalize their existence, so long as that something doesn't involve an entity more powerful than themselves. I find it perplexing how so many people would rather believe that they descended from ape-like creatures, who came from some type of rodent, than accept that they were created in the image of God.

Maybe because it's the truth?
"Well, that gives whole new meaning to my assassination. If I was going to die anyway, perhaps I should leave the Bolsheviks' descendants some Christmas cookies instead of breaking their dishes and vodka bottles in their sleep." -Tsar Nicholas II (YYW)
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 5:58:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 4:00:18 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 3:10:00 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:58:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:53:52 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:49:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 2:35:27 PM, vbaculum wrote:
When you read articles about evolution, such as this one:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...

how do you interprete them? Do you assume the scientists are simply mistaken or guided by evil spirits? Do you think they are intentionally misrepresenting the truth - perhaps to support their own godless worldview? Or is it that they want to promote a godless wordview to say... promote communism, atheism or Satanism? What goes through your mind?

There is a comprehensive set of systematic errors in the fundamental process and methodology of evolutionary science, Geology and astrophysics at it's most fundamental levels; this is not brought to the publics attention because evolutionary scientists, geologists and astrophysicists are dishonest and never show evidence that disagrees with their point of view.

The biggest proof of this, are the many scientific studies, examples, fossiles and the like that evolutionary scienctists, geologists and astrophysicists has brought up over many years that contradicts and challenges our current level of understanding of the world in those areas.


yea, jokes aside....there is serious gap in what we know and what we say we know.

I personally enjoy the honesty of these folks: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org...

That's why science, biology, geology, astrophysics and the like are continuing to test, predict, experiment and observe things.

Sure, but I wholeheartedly reject young earth creationism.
Not creationism in itself....but the young earth model most certainly. It is infuriatingly naive.

As an interesting asside, a counter "list" to the one linked is the following:

http://ncse.com...

Yea....debunked. Project Steven plays off odds. I did a debate on this during my pre-deconversion.

I pulled a list of popular names from the 1950s-1980s. Steve was always on the top 10 list of names given to a boy. Therefore a sizable portion of male PHDs would also be called Steve. The odds that you would find more pro-Darwin Steves than anti-Darwin PHDs is impossible to beat.
Had they called it project Randall, project Joshua, project Marcus or any other less common male name for those decades...the proof would have failed or been far less dramatic. They played off a popular name. Not to mention, the project was a satire.

The dissent for Darwin has a certain merit to it. It's intellectually myopic to assume a person "fell off the Turnip Truck", if they don't swallow Darwin's theory uncritically.

Additionally, the Dissent project doesn't deny Darwinism, it denies the dogma and seeks to clarify what limits exists within the paradigm. We certainly cannot blame all biological phenomena on Darwinism. After all, Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of species, not the origin of Life....yet that's exactly what some school textbooks teach.
Both sides have fundamentalist nuts. I think the Dissent project is a step in the right direction, plus it encourages open communication by not being mutually exclusive.
...Let's face it, conversation is still the best way change someone's mind.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:04:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"When you read articles about evolution how do you interpret them?"

Sounds good on paper. Do I buy stock in it, not so much.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:08:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

No. Science operates by the apparatus of methodological naturalism. The supernatural cannot be observed, tested, or measured, and therefore it is outside the scope of science.

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events"

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:18:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:08:46 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

No. Science operates by the apparatus of methodological naturalism. The supernatural cannot be observed, tested, or measured, and therefore it is outside the scope of science.

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If God was testable and had a measurable effect, then science would include it.
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:38:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:18:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:08:46 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

No. Science operates by the apparatus of methodological naturalism. The supernatural cannot be observed, tested, or measured, and therefore it is outside the scope of science.

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If God was testable and had a measurable effect, then science would include it.

He sort of is. I think the Higgs field study is pretty promising in debunking God. If anything in contemporary science has the chance to stand toe to toe with deity...it's Higgs Boson.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:41:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:18:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:08:46 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

No. Science operates by the apparatus of methodological naturalism. The supernatural cannot be observed, tested, or measured, and therefore it is outside the scope of science.

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If God was testable and had a measurable effect, then science would include it.

If.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:43:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:38:59 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:18:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:08:46 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

No. Science operates by the apparatus of methodological naturalism. The supernatural cannot be observed, tested, or measured, and therefore it is outside the scope of science.

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If God was testable and had a measurable effect, then science would include it.

He sort of is. I think the Higgs field study is pretty promising in debunking God. If anything in contemporary science has the chance to stand toe to toe with deity...it's Higgs Boson.

I don't see how the discovery of Higgs Boson could possibly falsify "God."

There's always the logical possibility of the "perfect deceiver" God who creates a universe specifically to appear as though no God existed.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:45:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:43:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:38:59 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:18:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:08:46 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

No. Science operates by the apparatus of methodological naturalism. The supernatural cannot be observed, tested, or measured, and therefore it is outside the scope of science.

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If God was testable and had a measurable effect, then science would include it.

He sort of is. I think the Higgs field study is pretty promising in debunking God. If anything in contemporary science has the chance to stand toe to toe with deity...it's Higgs Boson.

I don't see how the discovery of Higgs Boson could possibly falsify "God."

There's always the logical possibility of the "perfect deceiver" God who creates a universe specifically to appear as though no God existed.

See... see... this is Wnope right here.

This is my man Wnope.

The man, Wnope.

In any case, the Higgs Boson is irrelevant to spirituality.

But, I keep coming back for posts like this, inded.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:49:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:41:52 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:18:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:08:46 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

No. Science operates by the apparatus of methodological naturalism. The supernatural cannot be observed, tested, or measured, and therefore it is outside the scope of science.

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If God was testable and had a measurable effect, then science would include it.

If.

That's what the op mentioned; bolded.

I don't think it is particular relevant. God fails completely on a philosophical level way before it gets to a scientific one.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:57:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:08:46 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

No. Science operates by the apparatus of methodological naturalism. The supernatural cannot be observed, tested, or measured, and therefore it is outside the scope of science.

That would put it out of the scope of human experience. Even subjective experience is studied intensely by neuroscientists, psychologist, etc.

Besides, religions make claims all the time about the natural world. YEC is the claim that the earth was created, and that it was created a short time ago. These claims are testable.

If the supernatural had the properties you attribute to it, it would be impossible for you to say anything about it, such that it exists.


"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events"

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 6:58:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:43:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:38:59 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:18:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:08:46 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

No. Science operates by the apparatus of methodological naturalism. The supernatural cannot be observed, tested, or measured, and therefore it is outside the scope of science.

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If God was testable and had a measurable effect, then science would include it.

He sort of is. I think the Higgs field study is pretty promising in debunking God. If anything in contemporary science has the chance to stand toe to toe with deity...it's Higgs Boson.

I don't see how the discovery of Higgs Boson could possibly falsify "God."

There's always the logical possibility of the "perfect deceiver" God who creates a universe specifically to appear as though no God existed.

In which case he may as well not exist. An inconsequential God is not a God.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Heineken
Posts: 1,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 7:01:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:45:55 PM, Franz_Reynard wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:43:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:38:59 PM, Heineken wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:18:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:08:46 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 5:18:55 PM, vbaculum wrote:

Wouldn't scientists, those people who are the most interested in nature, want to incorporate god(s) into their theories, if those entities were real? Would you agree that, if a theistic god were real, its existence would have a bearing on the world that scientist study?

No. Science operates by the apparatus of methodological naturalism. The supernatural cannot be observed, tested, or measured, and therefore it is outside the scope of science.

"Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavors"all hypotheses and events"are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events"

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If God was testable and had a measurable effect, then science would include it.

He sort of is. I think the Higgs field study is pretty promising in debunking God. If anything in contemporary science has the chance to stand toe to toe with deity...it's Higgs Boson.

I don't see how the discovery of Higgs Boson could possibly falsify "God."

There's always the logical possibility of the "perfect deceiver" God who creates a universe specifically to appear as though no God existed.

See... see... this is Wnope right here.

This is my man Wnope.

The man, Wnope.

In any case, the Higgs Boson is irrelevant to spirituality.

But, I keep coming back for posts like this, inded.

Meh...I'm not really stating that Higgs is relative to spirituality. More concerned with the ex nihilo argument...but whatever floats your boat.
Vidi, vici, veni.
(I saw, I conquered, I came.)
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 7:27:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 6:57:12 PM, vbaculum wrote:

That would put it out of the scope of human experience. Even subjective experience is studied intensely by neuroscientists, psychologist, etc.

Because cognition can be measured and tested, the same cannot be said for the supernatural.

Besides, religions make claims all the time about the natural world.

Yes because those are claims about the natural world, not about the supernatural world.

If the supernatural had the properties you attribute to it, it would be impossible for you to say anything about it, such that it exists.

Precisely, why science doesn't.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 8:20:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 7:27:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:57:12 PM, vbaculum wrote:

That would put it out of the scope of human experience. Even subjective experience is studied intensely by neuroscientists, psychologist, etc.

Because cognition can be measured and tested, the same cannot be said for the supernatural.


Besides, religions make claims all the time about the natural world.

Yes because those are claims about the natural world, not about the supernatural world.


If the supernatural had the properties you attribute to it, it would be impossible for you to say anything about it, such that it exists.

Precisely, why science doesn't.

Are you conceding that humans can't make a legitimate claim (scientific or otherwise) that there is supernatural realm?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2013 10:58:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 8:20:18 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/8/2013 7:27:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:57:12 PM, vbaculum wrote:

That would put it out of the scope of human experience. Even subjective experience is studied intensely by neuroscientists, psychologist, etc.

Because cognition can be measured and tested, the same cannot be said for the supernatural.


Besides, religions make claims all the time about the natural world.

Yes because those are claims about the natural world, not about the supernatural world.


If the supernatural had the properties you attribute to it, it would be impossible for you to say anything about it, such that it exists.

Precisely, why science doesn't.

Are you conceding that humans can't make a legitimate claim (scientific or otherwise) that there is supernatural realm?

Concede something which I never argued in the first place?
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/9/2013 7:43:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/8/2013 10:58:05 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 8:20:18 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 2/8/2013 7:27:37 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 2/8/2013 6:57:12 PM, vbaculum wrote:

That would put it out of the scope of human experience. Even subjective experience is studied intensely by neuroscientists, psychologist, etc.

Because cognition can be measured and tested, the same cannot be said for the supernatural.


Besides, religions make claims all the time about the natural world.

Yes because those are claims about the natural world, not about the supernatural world.


If the supernatural had the properties you attribute to it, it would be impossible for you to say anything about it, such that it exists.

Precisely, why science doesn't.

Are you conceding that humans can't make a legitimate claim (scientific or otherwise) that there is supernatural realm?

Concede something which I never argued in the first place?

You had made several claims about "the supernatural", such as that it was unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable and outside the realm of science. I took this as an affirmation that you believed it existed and would therefore have to argue that humans can know it.

My point was: if "science" can't know the supernatural, as you've defined, nether can humans.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it