Jump to content


Photo

So, What Exactly Is Science?


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 14 February 2016 - 09:29 AM

Evolutionists believe that their arguments are superior to non-evolutionists because they say evolution is science, and the alternatives are not. You hear it often in debate, usually as the evo winds down and runs out of logical refutations to challenges against his favorite theory.

 

"Nyah, nyah, nyah, we do science and you don't."

 

So, I found myself on Google curious to see exactly what is the definition of science. What I discovered is very revealing, and not in favor of the evolutionists.

 

From Merriam-Webster:

 

 

Full Definition of science
  1. 1 :  the state of knowing :  knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding

  2. 2a :  a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>b :  something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>

  3. 3a :  knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific methodb :  such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :  natural science

  4. 4 :  a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>

  5. 5 capitalized :  christian science

 

From Dictionary.com:

 

 

noun
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.a particular branch of knowledge.
7.skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

 

From Cambridge Dictionary:

 

 

science noun [C/U]  us   /ˈsɑɪ·əns/
 
the ​systematicstudy of the ​structure and ​behavior of the ​natural and ​physicalworld, or ​knowledgeobtained about the ​world by ​watching it ​carefully and experimenting: [U] Advances in ​medical science ​mean that ​people are ​livinglonger. [U] She ​shows a ​talent for ​math and science.
 
Sciences are also ​particularareas of science, such as ​biology, ​chemistry, and ​physics.
 
Science also refers to ​subjects which are ​studied like a science: [U] political/​computer science

 

Oxford English Dictionary:

 

 

science

Syllabification: sci·ence
Pronunciation: /ˈsīəns/
 
Definition of science in English: noun
1The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: the world of science and technology
1.1A particular area of this: veterinary science the agricultural sciences
1.2A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject: the science of criminology
1.3 archaic Knowledge of any kind.

 

I could go on, but you see that these authoritative dictionaries agree on the basic definition of science. If you look at each definition, and have a worldview that allows you to look at these objectively, then you'd have to agree that the definition of science excludes the study of the Theory of Evolution. Notice that these definitions openly state, or allude to, that real science relies on observing and testing of the natural world via the scientific method. Neither of which can be done for evolution.

 

But, let's allow for a looser definition of science that might allow study of the Theory of Evolution to be called science. As we see above, for example:

 

From M-W: "the state of knowing :  knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding'

 

From Dictionary.com: "systematized knowledge in general."

 

From Cambridge Dictionary: "Science also refers to ​subjects which are ​studied like a science:"

 

From Oxford Dictionary: "A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject:"

 

Study of the Theory of Evolution fits nicely into these "softer" definitions of science. But, guess what, so do the alternatives.

 

Here's why:

 

Because of their limiting worldview, evos disagree with this, but the plain fact is that reality is comprised of both the natural world and the supernatural world. Disagreement over that simple fact is what separates those who do "real" science from those who do science with half their brains tied behind their backs; vis-a-vis, completely omitting a huge part of reality in their attempt to understand the world.

 

So, basically, it comes down to either:

 

1.) Study of the Theory of Evolution cannot be considered a real science under the strict definition of science.

 

or

 

2.) Allowing for the softer definition of science in order to let the Theory of Evolution in, also allows for the alternatives to be included.

 

As this topic is picked up and debated here, one should be able to easily recognize whether the poster's worldview allows him to acknowledge all of reality, or whether he is being hindered by denial of all of reality.

 

Remember the "soft" definition of science from M-W: "the state of knowing :  knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding"

 

Ignoring the part of reality that includes the supernatural is indeed ignorance, and thus not science.



#2 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 14 February 2016 - 01:49 PM

Evolutionists believe that their arguments are superior to non-evolutionists because they say evolution is science, and the alternatives are not. You hear it often in debate, usually as the evo winds down and runs out of logical refutations to challenges against his favorite theory.
 
"Nyah, nyah, nyah, we do science and you don't."
 
So, I found myself on Google curious to see exactly what is the definition of science. What I discovered is very revealing, and not in favor of the evolutionists.

Dictionaries are great when you need a simple definition of what a word means, but you shouldn't expect it to be robust enough to tell you everything you need to know about a centuries old social practice that encompasses dozens of different disciplines, and it's certainly not going to get in to the philosophical underpinnings of that practice. There's a reason we spend years teaching students what science is and how it works rather than just handing them a dictionary.
 

I could go on, but you see that these authoritative dictionaries agree on the basic definition of science. If you look at each definition, and have a worldview that allows you to look at these objectively, then you'd have to agree that the definition of science excludes the study of the Theory of Evolution. Notice that these definitions openly state, or allude to, that real science relies on observing and testing of the natural world via the scientific method. Neither of which can be done for evolution.

Why not?
 

Because of their limiting worldview, evos disagree with this, but the plain fact is that reality is comprised of both the natural world and the supernatural world.

How are you defining "natural" versus "supernatural"?

#3 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,268 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 14 February 2016 - 02:05 PM

 

 There's a reason we spend years teaching students what science is and how it works rather than just handing them a dictionary.
 

 

That's funny, I learned the basic framework in less than 3 minutes in 5th Grade General Science...

 

The Scientific Method...
 
Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

 

"Science is nothing more than a method of inquiry."

Crichton, Michael; Testimony before the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (28 September 2005).

 

 

In the next 5 minutes, I leaned the how to construct the sine qua non of "The Method": Formal Hypothesis Construction...

 

The "Independent Variable"--- what the Scientist Controls/Manipulates "The Cause" to TEST "The Effect"....."Dependent Variables".

 

That is: "IF THIS"...."THEN THAT" (Prediction), motif.

 

Then we went out for recess and played "Murder-Ball".   :cool:


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#4 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 14 February 2016 - 03:38 PM

Dictionaries are great when you need a simple definition of what a word means, but you shouldn't expect it to be robust enough to tell you everything you need to know about a centuries old social practice that encompasses dozens of different disciplines, and it's certainly not going to get in to the philosophical underpinnings of that practice. There's a reason we spend years teaching students what science is and how it works rather than just handing them a dictionary.
 
Why not?
 
How are you defining "natural" versus "supernatural"?

*My bold*

 

Those are good points.

 

During my Google research for this topic I, of course, encountered many non-dictionary interpretations of what science is. As far as I'm concerned, they were all valid "soft" definitions as covered by the alternative definitions offered by the dictionaries I quoted.

 

As they strayed further from the "hard" definition of science as observing, testing, etc., via the scientific method, they moved further into the realm where study of the Theory of Evolution is less of a hard science and one driven by philosophy, as you said in the above quote.

 

Like I said, evolutionists either have to admit that their studies are not, and cannot be, in the family of sciences that can be studied via the scientific method, or they must allow that their studies, based largely on assumptions, conjecture and faith, are no different than the alternatives.

 

Off the top of my head, I'd say that the supernatural is everything else in the real world that scientists don't credit to being in the natural world ... hence "super" natural. And don't go down the rabbit trail of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." You know full well what I mean by the supernatural, and mention of the FSM or any other fictional character will only tell me that you have run out of things to say.



#5 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 14 February 2016 - 04:08 PM

As they strayed further from the "hard" definition of science as observing, testing, etc., via the scientific method, they moved further into the realm where study of the Theory of Evolution is less of a hard science and one driven by philosophy, as you said in the above quote.

That's not what I was saying at all. All science is ultimately rooted in philosophy. If you're trying to talk about what science is, and you never touch on why it is those things, it seems like you've doomed the discussion from the start.
 

Off the top of my head, I'd say that the supernatural is everything else in the real world that scientists don't credit to being in the natural world ... hence "super" natural. And don't go down the rabbit trail of the "Flying Spaghetti Monster." You know full well what I mean by the supernatural, and mention of the FSM or any other fictional character will only tell me that you have run out of things to say.

I don't know what you mean when you say "supernatural", because you seem to think it's a plain fact that such things exist, and I don't. If they exist and are observable, there doesn't seem to be any reason to call them supernatural. If they exist and aren't observable, it doesn't seem like the tools of science are appropriate to make discoveries about those things.

#6 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 14 February 2016 - 04:46 PM

I don't know what you mean when you say "supernatural", because you seem to think it's a plain fact that such things exist, and I don't. If they exist and are observable, there doesn't seem to be any reason to call them supernatural. If they exist and aren't observable, it doesn't seem like the tools of science are appropriate to make discoveries about those things.

 

And therein lies the proof of my point about worldviews. Either your worldview allows you to accept the supernatural as part of our reality, or it doesn't.

 

Your worldview doesn't.

 

We are worlds apart in our thinking. I accept all of reality. You don't.

 

Ultimately, except for arguing over the minutia, that is what the evolution vs. creation debate is all about.



#7 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 276 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Cornwall

Posted 14 February 2016 - 05:13 PM

I accept all of reality. You don't.


With that statement aren't you already including the supernatural as part of your own personal reality ? What observable, testable evidence do you have that the supernatural is part of reality ?



#8 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 14 February 2016 - 06:12 PM

With that statement aren't you already including the supernatural as part of your own personal reality ? What observable, testable evidence do you have that the supernatural is part of reality ?

*My bold*

 

There you go. Your godless worldview has you attempting to apply a naturalistic-only test, like the scientific method, to something that is super-natural.

 

If you weren't limiting yourself to only a naturalistic worldview you wouldn't even feel the need to ask the question.

 

That aside, we get the biggest kick out of that question ... as it is entirely feasible to turn it around and ask, "What observable, testable evidence do you have that evolution is true?" In other words, apply the scientific method.

 

You realize, don't you, that it is what many of us have been trying to get you guys to do for the past umpteen threads.



#9 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 14 February 2016 - 06:40 PM

*My bold*
 
There you go. Your godless worldview has you attempting to apply a naturalistic-only test, like the scientific method, to something that is super-natural.

Can you identify a supernatural thing that exists, and explain how you know it to exist?
  • Mike Summers likes this

#10 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,878 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 February 2016 - 07:12 PM

Can you identify a supernatural thing that exists, and explain how you know it to exist?


Yep! How about something we all deal with the lowly thought? Give us the physics of information--its dimension, weight, size, color, smell, etc.



#11 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,878 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 February 2016 - 08:44 PM

One of the most famous experiments there has ever been is one done by Russian Scientist, Pavlov.

Pavlov was doing a study on the stomach and was using dogs to do so. He noticed that when ever his lab assistants appeared in their white coats to feed the dogs, the dogs would start to salivate upon observing his lab assistants in whiite coats. He had an idea! He decided to have his lab assistants remove their white coats and ring a bell right before they fed the dogs to test his hypothesis. Meanwhile, in a control group he rang a bell and did not feed those dogs.

Sure enough in the first group of dogs whevever the bell was rung the dogs began to salivate upon hearing the bell. But no matter how many times the bell was rung in the control group those dogs not fed did not salvate.

This experiment is but a reprise of an expriment done by Adam & Eve described in in the book of Genesis. At the end of Gen 2 Adam and Eve are said to be naked and not embarassed. After an encounter with the fallen angel, Satan, he talks them into eating from his tree which meant to adopt his philosophical headset that of victim. He lies to them and they suddenly think there is something wrong with being naked. Now remeber the Bible in Gen 2 says that they were naked and not emmbraassed. So, nakedness could not be the cause of their embarassment. What was?

let A be a stinulus such as being naked or a bell ringing. Let C be a consequenc or effect. It appears that A causes C. But not so, because B is missing. B represents belief or cognition. Therefore, B mediates between A and C and is the true cause of C. Restated, cognition serves as a mediating function between stimulis A (an activting event) and C (emotional response or consequence--effect). The missing variable is cognition or belief about A. And that is good science in a nutshell!

The lie Satan told is that our environment causes us to emote and can do things to us is the embodiment of the evo headset.
Since the garden Adam and Eve's decendants have been perpetuating the lie that our environment of non living matter can do thing it can't do! (evo did it lol).

Little Timmy comes in from play crying.
Mom: "Weren't you playing with Suzy"?
Timmy: "Yes, Mom," Timmy says trough his tears.
Mom: (rennforcing Timmy's budding deception). "What did she say to make you so upset"?

Timmy: (renforcing his own deception). "She called me stupid!" Thus, his mom has aided in reenforcing Timmy learning his lines and endlessly repeaating them to himself during all sorts of situatuions he will find himself in. That will ensure to cause him to be disturbed on cue just like Pavlov's dogs. This is called a neurotic agreement. Just about everyone paericipates in it at some. time in their life. Most of us quite frequently. I call it lousy science (reasoning) or wrpng cause and effect assignment.



#12 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 14 February 2016 - 08:48 PM

Can you identify a supernatural thing that exists, and explain how you know it to exist?

 

I'll do that just as soon as you admit that you accept the supernatural world as being every bit as real as the natural world.

 

You see, your worldview prevents you believing or even accepting anything that anyone would tell you about something in a world that you deny exists.

 

You don't get it about worldviews, do you?



#13 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 14 February 2016 - 09:26 PM

I'll do that just as soon as you admit that you accept the supernatural world as being every bit as real as the natural world.

I have yet to see any compelling reason to.

Explain yourself or don't, whatever you want, but I'm not all that interested in prying your beliefs out of you.

#14 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,878 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 February 2016 - 09:39 PM

How about that? I give him an example of the non physical or superntural and he just ignores it. Very scientific! LOL

 

Popoi said: "I have yet to see any compelling reason to".
Didn't the emperor say something similar to that in the Hans Christian Anderson fairytale? You gotta think.  "Caution, make sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in gear". :)



#15 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,878 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 February 2016 - 09:21 AM

I think I get it. Supernatural is a "bad" word. Wonder why we have it in our vocabulary?
Are there any replacements for it? Hmmm...

 

Still it seems we need a  word to describe some aspects of reality--like thinking. I've always thought thinking was real since we do so much of it. Could I (we) be wrong? I can't say I have ever seen or weighed a thought. This is quite a dilemma. What to do? Help!!!! LOL

in·tan·gi·ble
/inˈtanjəb(ə)l/

adjective: intangible

1. unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence.
"my companions do not care about cyberspace or anything else so intangible"


synonyms: impalpable, untouchable, incorporeal, discarnate, abstract; More
ethereal, insubstantial, immaterial, airy;

ghostly, spectral, unearthly, supernatural


"the shadows were more intangible than usual as they shifted with each quavering bough and passing cloud"

•difficult or impossible to define or understand; vague and abstract.
"the rose symbolized something intangible about their relationship"


synonyms: indefinable, indescribable, inexpressible, nameless; More
vague, obscure, abstract, unclear, indefinite, undefined, subtle, elusive


"team spirit may be intangible, but we wouldn't have gotten to the finals without it"

•(of an asset or benefit) not constituting or represented by a physical object and of a value not precisely measurable.
"intangible business property like trademarks and patents"

noun

noun: intangible; plural noun: intangibles

1. an intangible thing.
"intangibles like self-confidence and responsibility"

Origin

early 17th century (as an adjective): from French, or from medieval Latin intangibilis, from in- ‘not’ + late Latin tangibilis (see tangible).



I think get it. Supernatrralis a "bad" word to some people. Hmmm... What can we replace it with?

in·tan·gi·ble
/inˈtanjəb(ə)l/
adjective

adjective: intangible
1. unable to be touched or grasped; not having physical presence.
"my companions do not care about cyberspace or anything else so intangible"

synonyms: impalpable, untouchable, incorporeal, discarnate, abstract; More
ethereal, insubstantial, immaterial, airy;

ghostly, spectral, unearthly, supernatural

"the shadows were more intangible than usual as they shifted with each quavering bough and passing cloud"

•difficult or impossible to define or understand; vague and abstract.
"the rose symbolized something intangible about their relationship"

synonyms: indefinable, indescribable, inexpressible, nameless; More
vague, obscure, abstract, unclear, indefinite, undefined, subtle, elusive

"team spirit may be intangible, but we wouldn't have gotten to the finals without it"

•(of an asset or benefit) not constituting or represented by a physical object and of a value not precisely measurable.
"intangible business property like trademarks and patents"

noun: intangible; plural noun: intangibles

1. an intangible thing.
"intangibles like self-confidence and responsibility"
Origin
early 17th century (as an adjective): from French, or from medieval Latin intangibilis, from in- ‘not’ + late Latin tangibilis (see tangible).



 



#16 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 15 February 2016 - 11:08 AM

I have yet to see any compelling reason to.

Of course not, Popoi. You just keep confirming what I am trying to hammer down about those with a self-limiting worldview being happy with doing science without all the information about reality.

 

Personally, if I was a scientist, I'd be embarrassed to admit that my mind is closed to a great deal of what is real about the world. Because of that, they will never, ever discern the truth that they so desperately seek.

 

It's like trying to explain the beautiful, but scary, energy of storm clouds massing over the midwest plains to a person who has been blind from birth. No matter how descriptive the explanation, that blind person will never really see it.

 

Now, doesn't it make you wonder why naturalistic scientists so willingly blind themselves? And are so proud of themselves for doing it to boot?

 

It boggles the mind.



#17 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,046 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 69
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 15 February 2016 - 11:20 AM

Of course not, Popoi. You just keep confirming what I am trying to hammer down about those with a self-limiting worldview being happy with doing science without all the information about reality.

 

Personally, if I was a scientist, I'd be embarrassed to admit that my mind is closed to a great deal of what is real about the world. Because of that, they will never, ever discern the truth that they so desperately seek.

 

It's like trying to explain the beautiful, but scary, energy of storm clouds massing over the midwest plains to a person who has been blind from birth. No matter how descriptive the explanation, that blind person will never really see it.

 

Now, doesn't it make you wonder why naturalistic scientists so willingly blind themselves? And are so proud of themselves for doing it to boot?

 

It boggles the mind.

I have to ask.....

 

Why do you think we call them "natural" and "physical" sciences?



#18 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 15 February 2016 - 11:36 AM

Why do you think we call them "natural" and "physical" sciences?

*My bold*

 

I can't speak for you because I don't know you, so I can't answer the question directly.

 

However, my guess would be that because of your naturalistic worldview you wish to stack the deck, so to speak, with a definition that only allows for your worldview.

 

But, to broaden the answer:

 

I don't dispute that there are physical sciences. I have a degree in physical geomorphology and a minor in geology, and I'm pretty sure that those qualify for a physical science label. :)

 

However, your question implies that study of the Theory of Evolution belongs in the physical science realm ... which it just certainly does not.



#19 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 15 February 2016 - 11:59 AM

Of course not, Popoi. You just keep confirming what I am trying to hammer down about those with a self-limiting worldview being happy with doing science without all the information about reality.

Personally, if I was a scientist, I'd be embarrassed to admit that my mind is closed to a great deal of what is real about the world. Because of that, they will never, ever discern the truth that they so desperately seek.

Scientists have been remarkably successful at figuring things out about reality despite having willfully incomplete information. Is all that success just a coincidence, or have they just not hit much of the stuff that requires some supernatural sense to figure out?

It's like trying to explain the beautiful, but scary, energy of storm clouds massing over the midwest plains to a person who has been blind from birth. No matter how descriptive the explanation, that blind person will never really see it.

Light, sound, temperature, wind, and barometric pressure are all things that can be consistently measured even if you don't have the senses to perceive them directly. It's difficult, but you can at least explain how you know there's a cloud on the horizon to a blind man, the same way we can explain how we know there's radiation somewhere even though we can't inherently detect it. There may be some emotion or poetry that a radiation-sensitive would experience that we don't, but that's not really relevant to the questions we're trying to answer with a scientific inquiry, specifically: Is radiation real? How does it work?

That's not what you're doing here. You're insisting that there are things out there that are relevant to our understanding of the things we can see, but won't (or can't) provide any explanation of how you know those things exist, how you can detect them when others can't, or why your claims should be taken more seriously than when someone claims that numbers have a taste.

Now, doesn't it make you wonder why naturalistic scientists so willingly blind themselves? And are so proud of themselves for doing it to boot?

It doesn't, because it's necessary for what they're trying to do, and as I said they've been extremely successful doing it.

#20 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 15 February 2016 - 01:05 PM

Scientists have been remarkably successful at figuring things out about reality despite having willfully incomplete information. Is all that success just a coincidence, or have they just not hit much of the stuff that requires some supernatural sense to figure out?

*My bold*

 

Yes. Now you are getting it.

 

 

That's not what you're doing here. You're insisting that there are things out there that are relevant to our understanding of the things we can see, but won't (or can't) provide any explanation of how you know those things exist, how you can detect them when others can't, or why your claims should be taken more seriously than when someone claims that numbers have a taste.

*My bold*

 

Please turn to your Bible and read Matthew 7:6, and then Romans 1:19-22.

 

God has made it abundantly clear that he exists to those who allow themselves to see, and that he is the creator of all. If you don't see it, it's because your worldview is blinding you to it. It doesn't mean it is there, anymore than those clouds don't exist because a blind person can't see them.

 

So, you are comfortable living in a world that you are only partially aware of? I can't image what that must be like.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users