0
normiss

Awesome things "god" does.

Recommended Posts

Quote

Quote

Yep. Evidence = useful vs evidence = not useful.



We're looking at the same evidence. I've got no problem with that which we can show to be true (operational science). You just also take speculative (historical science) investigation and assume a solid foundation from which to further your understanding built upon your atheistic assumptions. I see the exact same evidence and approach it from the other perspective. You can't adequately "prove" yours. I can't adequately "prove" mine...at least scientifically. The difference is, I admit my starting point and how it influences my interpretation. You do not admit yours. You take your unprovable position and establish it as absolute. Again, I do the same. We just disagree. I happen to think mine is more reasonable. I understand that you do the same.



As usual, everything you claim is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've got no problem with that which we can show to be true (operational science).



A term made up by creationist and used only by creationist. Same with 'historical science.:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
You're funny.
You should steer clear of Answers in Genesis. Clouds ones mind.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I've got no problem with that which we can show to be true (operational science).



A term made up by creationist and used only by creationist. Same with 'historical science.:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
You're funny.


Ok then, how about testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable experimentation (operational) versus interpreting past events based on presupposed philosophical viewpoints (historical).

Added: Lunchtime! B|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You should steer clear of Answers in Genesis. Clouds ones mind.



If you peruse Bereshit (Genesis) from the standpoint of its origins, it has some saving graces. There is much insight to be gained in quite what legends, lore and mythology were assimilated from other cultures and assembled into a prequel to "The Book" (Devarim - Deuteronomy). Devarim is a much older work.

To reject the whole thing as worthless because of the persistent strain of superstition that pervades the work is as unrealistic as is swallowing the superstition hook, line and sinker.

Any researcher worth their salt will put into context a contemporary account, and will consider the limitations thus imposed. A tribal language whose numerical complexity consists of words meaning "one," "two" and "many" may provide a description that is entirely accurate within its limitations, but it would be foolhardy to try to base calculations to any level of precision on values other than one or two.

Thus, when pagans got ahold of our family lore and dubbed it "the word of god," an awful lot of meaning was lost and meaning that was not there to begin with was added.

There is nothing any more wrong with Torah than with the Aeneid, so long as either is taken with a grain of salt. It is when people become wholly credulous that veracity becomes immaterial.


BSBD,

Winsor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED447099.pdf

i suspect that this will be your counter:
http://creation.com/whos-really-pushing-bad-science-rebuttal-to-lawrence-s-lerner

and this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/what-is-science

Furthermore 'Historical science is associated with 'Intelligent Design.'
I will also say, if it cannot be tested, it is not science.

Operational science as defined at Answers in Genesis:

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.

Operational science is the type of science that allows us to understand how DNA codes for proteins in cells. It is the type of science that has allowed us to cure and treat diseases, put a man on the moon, build satellites and telescopes, and make products that are useful to humans. Biblical creationists believe that God has created a universe that uses a set of natural laws that operate consistently in the universe. Understanding how those laws operate is the basis for scientific thinking.

Some events defy natural laws. Christians refer to these things as miracles, but naturalistic science must find a way to explain these occurrences naturally. This approach rejects miracles in the Bible because they cannot be explained using natural laws. Such scientists occasionally try to explain the miracles in the Bible as natural phenomena, but this ultimately undermines the authority of God and His Word.

Remove the notion of a god and I can more understand than not. God is not science or even theory, as god cannot be tested, god must therefore be left out of the equation.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

We're looking at the same evidence.



That's just the point, isn't it? Only one side is looking, the other is doing their best impressions of the first two monkeys.

Quote

I've got no problem with that which we can show to be true (operational science). You just also take speculative (historical science) investigation and assume a solid foundation from which to further your understanding built upon your atheistic assumptions.



And while that may sound very slick and reasonable, the problem is that's just a totally invented distinction, just the same as all the other creationists who waffle on about macro vs micro evolution. It's all the same thing. (In fact, from the language I wouldn't be surprised if this tack has its roots in Popper's criticism [which he later withdrew completely] of evolution as an untestable 'historical' science.)

The 'atheistic assumption' that you speak of is quite simply the assumption that we can learn about the universe by looking at the universe. Where it goes from there is guided only by the evidence.

Quote

I see the exact same evidence and approach it from the other perspective.



Yeah, from this perspective: By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.

Quote

The difference is, I admit my starting point and how it influences my interpretation.



No. The difference is that you've made your mind up before you even look, and you're willing to swallow whole absolutely any 'just so' story that anyone with a PhD makes up to explain away another pesky bit of evidence that doesn't quite fit. In the way that Africa doesn't quite fit in an espresso cup.

Quote

I can't adequately "prove" mine



No, you certainly can't. Since the only research you seem to do is trawl AiG for articles with good titles written by people with impressive sounding qualifications and then blindly reposting them hear without even doing us the courtesy of reading them first and finding out exactly what brand of idiocy you're about to inflict on us.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

...... Since the "Great Enlightenment", the trend has been to elliminate God from the equation and insert ourselves in His place (greatly increasing our arrogance). Belief does not negate science. How could it? God is at it's foundation.



yeah because it makes ZERO sense to include her.

Quote

God is at it's foundation.



WTF? No it isn't. How could anyone EVER think that was remotely true?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

***But you don't have a lost child, do you?

Quote

No. I keep close watch after mine.


I lost a stepson to an accidental drug overdose. "Acute Morphine Toxicity" was what the death certificate said.
4 months later, I was diagnosed with a cancer and I was told "we have no cure for this". (I participated in a clinical trial and things are good, thanks!)
Since then my marriage has ended primarily because of all the stress these things bring into your life.
I don't blame any of this on some god. If I did believe in a god, I think I'd have reason to be pissed off at him. As it stands, I know that it is just the way it is...I roll with it and get on with living.

Tha phrase "God works in mysterious ways" is a cheap cop out. There isn't some god pulling the strings.
"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But you've got to say the same thing in reverse. Like I said before, it is your presupposition/assumption on which you build everything else.



I'm fully aware of that, but Atheists aren't the ones with double standards in this. I for example do not doubt that if God did exist, he could exist from nothing. I believe that the concept of infinity is real and doesn't need divine power. Where as you believe that space can not hold this value.

So it's definitely not an issue of the same thing just reversed.

It would be the same thing if you said to me "Sure, I believe that the universe didn't need a starting point - but I still believe God did it." Unfortunately that's not what you're saying.

I should also bring up that "If God didn't do it, then how did it get here" is probably the most commonly used reasons for believing in God that I have come across. People use the idea that only God can exist from nothing as a luring point to believing that he therefor must exist.

I don't say "well space has existed for eternity, therefor God can't exist", I say that because of this, it gives me no need or reason to try use a God to explain the presence of things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

I've got no problem with that which we can show to be true (operational science).



A term made up by creationist and used only by creationist. Same with 'historical science.:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
You're funny.


Ok then, how about testable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable experimentation

B|


Like the uncertainty principle, that has never been observed to be violated in tens of thousands of experiments. Which is rather more experimental, repeatable, observable, falsifiable data than you have for the existence of your god (none at all).
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like the uncertainty principle, that has never been observed to be violated in tens of thousands of experiments. Which is rather more experimental, repeatable, observable, falsifiable data than you have for the existence of your god (none at all).



If God doesn't exist why, as a species ,have we sought Him for so many millennia? If there wasn't an evolutionary advantage to finding God, He would never have arisen in the first place. What evolutionary advantage could atheism possibly offer? And please, don't confuse atheism with science. Atheists have hijacked science like it was their own creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



Like the uncertainty principle, that has never been observed to be violated in tens of thousands of experiments. Which is rather more experimental, repeatable, observable, falsifiable data than you have for the existence of your god (none at all).



If God doesn't exist why, as a species ,have we sought Him for so many millennia?.



Bad logic. Very bad logic. You may fool yourself but it won't fool anyone else (except maybe Coreece). You have NO evidence to support your myths.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If God doesn't exist why, as a species ,have we sought Him for so many millennia? If there wasn't an evolutionary advantage to finding God, He would never have arisen in the first place. What evolutionary advantage could atheism possibly offer? And please, don't confuse atheism with science. Atheists have hijacked science like it was their own creation.



Because it's an easy cop out for lazy people. When posing the questions about what we are doing here, instead of saying something like this:

"I don't know yet but if I study it using the scientific method maybe someday I will"

The lazy say:

"It's too complicated to understand so it must be some mythical being that is up there making it happen".
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because it's an easy cop out for lazy people. When posing the questions about what we are doing here, instead of saying something like this:

"I don't know yet but if I study it using the scientific method maybe someday I will"

The lazy say:

"It's too complicated to understand so it must be some mythical being that is up there making it happen".




Whaat? Our history speaks for its self. We are a species with an intense thirst for God.


...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Bad logic. Very bad logic. You may fool yourself but it won't fool anyone else (except maybe Coreece). You have NO evidence to support your myths.



BS you have no evidence to refute it.



Utter nonsense. The burden is on the believers of the spiritual to prove their belief, not on others to disprove it. That's truly as basic as it gets.

You get an F in Logic 101.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Bad logic. Very bad logic. You may fool yourself but it won't fool anyone else (except maybe Coreece). You have NO evidence to support your myths.



BS you have no evidence to refute it.



Both a logical fallacy, and wrong. Humans are very adept at assigning patterns where none exist. We evolved to do this. It is better to think you see a tiger in the grass whn there isn't one, than to fail to see a tiger when there is one.

Your god is just a manifestation of this.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites