Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How the universe is belongs to science study; religion is a group of people praying sitting around doing nothing.
Those two things are very different. Religion should stay in church and mosque and say nothing about a science matter.
What about moral issues? Those are social science matters. Religion shouldn't have anything to say on those matters either.
So, stay in church, mosque... Don't come out.
I agree to a point. No matter what your religion is it should not bias your scientific study. Or if you don't believe anything other than the physical world.
I look at it this way...If I think what I believe is true, it should "bear up" to science. If not ...well...
Ockham's razor is a principle created by a religious Franciscan friar that has repeatedly been shown NOT to be true . . . especially as we learn more and more about reality through science. There is nothing scientific about it.
How can a tool for simplifying models be true or false?
Quote:
And yet you do it all the time with your assumption that there is no intelligence behind the clearly intelligent (directed) processes and design (not chaotic) features of reality that are used by science to intelligently explain what we can discern.
For this to be true, all you have to do is provide a reason that anyone should think that the universe is the result of some sort of intelligent design. Feel free to start any time you like.
Quote:
Concepts of God are of human origin and are irrelevant.
I agree about the relevance of these concepts, including your concept of it in this sense :
Quote:
The existence of God is not worthless
Quote:
God needn't explain or predict anything about the processes we discover . . . only the reason they exist and are intelligible (able to be investigated intelligently . . . for those in Rio Linda) . . . which science provides no alternative for.
Not providing an alternative for a god which doesn't explain or predict anything isn't really that big of a failing.
Quote:
::Sigh:: I practiced social science research for 30+ years and taught advanced graduate research methods for most of that time.
So you admit you have no formal background in science, and yet claim it's a personal attack to point this out?
Before anyone here gets mentally irregular about what they think they know, or what they claim the answer to the question, "How can something come from nothing?" is...let's get down to the the way it REALLY is:
Like it or not, the answer to the OPs question that is the most prevalent, pervasive, and enduring is--The Lord Jehovah and Jesus Christ written of in The Bible.
I didn't say that's what I thought. I'm said that was the answer that was, "the most prevalent, pervasive, and enduring", to the OPs question...and that it appears to be nearly unshakable. I stand by that statement.
I'm willing to consider all options...unlike some. It is rare in contemporary society that hundreds of millions of people (some considered to be among the "smartest" ever) can be "put over" by something that is all B.S. One would be remiss to not at least take it under consideration.
What it really boils down to is this: How accurate and reliable is information we derive solely through intuition and perception? And can we ever consider it as "fact"?
How can a tool for simplifying models be true or false?
When it does NOT produce the correct answer because it is more complicated than previously thought.
Quote:
For this to be true, all you have to do is provide a reason that anyone should think that the universe is the result of some sort of intelligent design. Feel free to start any time you like.
For this to be true all that is necessary is that science be able to explain aspects of it systematically and with reliability. Chaotic systems afford no such opportunity. YOUR task is to explain how that could be without intelligence of SOME kind driving the interactions.
Quote:
I agree about the relevance of these concepts, including your concept of it in this sense :
Not providing an alternative for a god which doesn't explain or predict anything isn't really that big of a failing.
Unbelievable. NOT providing an alternative for what ESTABLISHES YOUR ABILITY TO EXPLAIN OR PREDICT ANYTHING . . . and THEN USING THE FINDINGS TO DENY that this wonderful "whatever it is" doesn't even exist . . . isn't just a big failing . . . it is devastatingly irrational.
Quote:
So you admit you have no formal background in science, and yet claim it's a personal attack to point this out?
Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really totally ignorant of what it takes to obtain a PhD in ANY science (hard or soft)? There are no shortcuts and no distinctions of any kind in the methodological rigor and understanding of the scientific method required. The requirements to advance the methodologies beyond that which exists, evaluate the research of others in other disciplines, practice original empirical research at the forefront of one's own field, and teach it at the graduate level IS about as FORMAL a background as you can get.
Quote:
It is impossible to find evidence for or indications of that which you actively deny even exists . . . all while discovering more and more of the details about it!!
I notice you ignored the preceding to end with your ad hominem attack. Typical.
1. It has always been in one form or another.
2. It did not exist and then it did.
3. It doesn't exist and never did.
4. It did exist, then it didn't, then it did.
1. It is expanding, then contracting
2. It is endlessly expanding.
Do you realize that Kent Hovind is the same person whom went to prison for tax evasion?
Sure... but what does that have to do with the fact that his answers are true?..and from the same science you hear everyday??? Did you know they targeted him with law because all the evolutionists he debated saw how embarrassingly wrong they were?... and the only thing they could 'conjure' against him had nothing to do with the truth in his debates...
(the blind does not want to see, because if they do, they will no longer have an excuse.)
I agree to a point. No matter what your religion is it should not bias your scientific study. Or if you don't believe anything other than the physical world.
I look at it this way...If I think what I believe is true, it should "bear up" to science. If not ...well...
Check out the seminars in the link below geniuses...
Creation Science Evangelism | Browsing Media Categories (http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10 - broken link)
Check out the seminars in the link below geniuses...
Creation Science Evangelism | Browsing Media Categories (http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10 - broken link)
Kent Hovind is the worst kind of quack.
He has been discredited numerous times, even by other creationists who feel his claims are outlandish.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
