Jump to content


Photo

Let's All Be Honest...


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#161 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 February 2009 - 03:16 PM

Yes, that's what's observed during collisions in particle accelerators.  What about your oven?

View Post


Yup in steel mill furnaces... must be the same for my oven. <_<

So in particle accelerators they take nothing and make nothing infinitely hot and make everything out of big bangs? I think your studying science fiction and not science.

#162 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 27 February 2009 - 05:43 PM

Yup in steel mill furnaces... must be the same for my oven.  <_<

So in particle accelerators they take nothing and make nothing infinitely hot and make everything out of big bangs? I think your studying science fiction and not science.

View Post


When did your oven become a steel mill? :o

#163 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 27 February 2009 - 06:46 PM

When did your oven become a steel mill?  <_<

View Post

Anyone understanding the principles can see what a trivial matter it is to calculate the time when the oven passed through the temperature ranges which correspond to a steel mill, or a white dwarf star, or any other temperature range you care to put into numbers.

#164 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 27 February 2009 - 09:24 PM

Thanks, CTD. I think Jason gets it, which makes one wonder why he persists.

#165 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 28 February 2009 - 04:02 AM

Thanks, CTD. I think Jason gets it, which makes one wonder why he persists.

View Post


I get it <_< your oven used to be at temperatures of over 10,000°F and is now a cold slag pile. You probably need a new oven.

#166 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 28 February 2009 - 07:10 AM

I get it <_< your oven used to be at temperatures of over 10,000°F and is now a cold slag pile.  You probably need a new oven.

View Post

Actually, what's needed is a new theory to describe what happens when the oven's temperature plummets beneath the minimum allowed by the present laws of science, as the principle of limitless extrapolation (a cornerstone postulate of Limitless Stupidity Theory) demands it must.

#167 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 28 February 2009 - 07:27 AM

Thanks, CTD. I think Jason gets it, which makes one wonder why he persists.

View Post


I would venture an educated guess on that Adam: I think he gets it, but - persistence is the only action for maintaining one’s own materialist (or semi-materialist) world view, even in the face of truth. They attempt to convolute to discussion with so many twists and turns that they (and those they disagree with) no longer see the base truth of the mater. This is where misguided diligence comes in.

The materialist wants to exclude the metaphysical (hence the naturalistic stance) from the equation so they don’t have to deal with the truth of it. But, true science proceeds by “NOT” excluding anything, because; with exclusion comes lack of knowledge. It’s like cutting off your left hand because you don’t like what it brings to the table. Or, cutting off your nose to spite your face…. It’s a lose-lose situation.

Like Paul said: The materialist sees evidence of the creator all around him. He just chooses to ignore that evidence….

#168 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 08 March 2009 - 04:42 PM

It's strange but true that the Earth was first observed empirically to be spherical in 1961.

Yet for quite a long time people somehow 'knew' it was round before then...... discuss.

#169 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 10 March 2009 - 06:42 AM

The materialist wants to exclude the metaphysical (hence the naturalistic stance) from the equation so they don’t have to deal with the truth of it. But, true science proceeds by “NOT” excluding anything, because; with exclusion comes lack of knowledge. It’s like cutting off your left hand because you don’t like what it brings to the table. Or, cutting off your nose to spite your face…. It’s a lose-lose situation.

Like Paul said: The materialist sees evidence of the creator all around him. He just chooses to ignore that evidence….

View Post


This should be the foundation of all of these discussions.

Science, and every field of science is a paradigm.

Beleif in God is a paradigm.

Each paradigm is a limiting factor of understanding the truth.

When we allow ourselves to venture into another paradigm, we always gain more of the truth. I will use a biblical example.

In studying Revelation there are four primary views of understanding. Each one is a paradigm. Usually we all are in a church which leans toward just one of these views. I certainly do. However, when we study all four views in detail, then we can understand that all four have a certian amount of truth in them. When we finish our study, we will still usually lean to one view, but the amount of truth we have will have been expanded.

I will now use a political example. Republicans tend to be very logical, and financial oriented. Democrats tend to be more people/emotional/ feeling oriented. Not one of these orientations is bad. In fact they are good. However, When republicans break their paradigm and become more people/emotional/feeling oriented, then they will win. When democrats become more logical/ financial oriented then they win. We have seen this play out in every election at least since Reagan. (This, of course assumes no deceipt)

Now when it comes to modern day science, the fact is naturalism is a very limiting paradigm. That's why when all the evidence is examined, nature ends up having all the attributes that religious people would attribute towards God. Nature ends up being an infinite source of power with substantial, indescribable, inmaterial forces and entities. And none of these inmaterial forces have a cause.

When the scientific paradigm is expanded to include the possibility of God, then all of these inmaterial forces in the universe make much more sense.

#170 MusesK

MusesK

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Oregon

Posted 12 March 2009 - 09:40 AM

The most rock-ribbed fundamentalist Christians believe in Evolution and...

...the most committed atheists believe in the supernatural.

View Post

What are you when you believe in both?

#171 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 March 2009 - 09:43 AM

What are you when you believe in both?

View Post

Logically inconsistent.

#172 oliver

oliver

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Brittany, France

Posted 12 March 2009 - 10:30 AM

It's strange but true that the Earth was first observed empirically to be spherical in 1961.

Yet for quite a long time people somehow 'knew' it was round before then...... discuss.

View Post

The earth was observed to be round and its diameter calculated by at least 500BC, by comparing the angle of the sun at noon at different latitudes. That is quite sufficient observation. It is incorrect to say that it was not empirically observed until we had space flight.

#173 MusesK

MusesK

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Oregon

Posted 12 March 2009 - 10:46 AM

Logically inconsistent.

View Post

I can accept that, lol. So're the laws governing their definitions; plus, it would explain why I accept parts of both, discard parts of both, when stepping up close to a defined image, and accepting existence of "all the above" from a further, external viewing point. I believe God said "Anything is Possible," which I personally equate with "There's always the possibility of an 'exception to the rule'," particularly when inspired human beings wrote 'em down. Plus, from mine own analytical perspective, technically speaking, they do both "exist," so I'm cool with accepting a more absolute perspective behind the q&a definition also, should one's psyche seek to demand such.

#174 RobotArchie

RobotArchie

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • London, UK

Posted 12 March 2009 - 02:09 PM

The earth was observed to be round and its diameter calculated by at least 500BC, by comparing the angle of the sun at noon at different latitudes.  That is quite sufficient observation.  It is incorrect to say that it was not empirically observed until we had space flight.

View Post



Thank you. I rest my case..........

#175 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 March 2009 - 04:58 PM

The earth was observed to be round and its diameter calculated by at least 500BC, by comparing the angle of the sun at noon at different latitudes.  That is quite sufficient observation.  It is incorrect to say that it was not empirically observed until we had space flight.

View Post


I'd say it was empirically observed when sailing ships appeared mast first over the horizon. The Greeks just refined that observation.

#176 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 15 March 2009 - 05:13 PM

This should be the foundation of all of these discussions. 

Science, and every field of science is a paradigm.

Beleif in God is a paradigm.

Each paradigm is a limiting factor of understanding the truth.

View Post


I agree



When we allow ourselves to venture into another paradigm, we always gain more of the truth.  I will use a biblical example.

In studying Revelation there are four primary views of understanding.  Each one is a paradigm.  Usually we all are in a church which leans toward just one of these views.  I certainly do.  However, when we study all four views in detail, then we can understand that all four have a certian amount of truth in them.  When we finish our study, we will still usually lean to one view, but the amount of truth we have will have been expanded.

View Post


This is why I have a hard time accepting denominationalism. I have yet to find one that accepts the totality of scripture. Too much leaning one way or the other.


I will now use a political example.  Republicans tend to be very logical, and financial oriented.  Democrats tend to be more people/emotional/ feeling oriented.  Not one of these orientations is bad.  In fact they are good.  However, When republicans break their paradigm and become more people/emotional/feeling oriented, then they will win.  When democrats become more logical/ financial oriented then they win.  We have seen this play out in every election at least since Reagan. (This, of course assumes no deceipt)

View Post


I don’t know if I agree with the verbiage so much as I agree with the meaning of your analogy. And generally agree with what you’re saying here as well.



Now when it comes to modern day science, the fact is naturalism is a very limiting paradigm.  That's why when all the evidence is examined, nature ends up having all the attributes that religious people would attribute towards God.  Nature ends up being an infinite source of power with substantial, indescribable, inmaterial forces and entities.  And none of these inmaterial forces have a cause.

View Post


This is where you and I see eye to eye my friend. Science (real science) excluded nothing when it begins a project (or hypothesis). And rules out items only as it disproves that items ability to logically fit within the experiment. If you rule something out a priori (or assumed/ pre-supposed) you aren’t using the scientific method, you are using a pseudo-scientific method.


When the scientific paradigm is expanded to include the possibility of God, then all of these inmaterial forces in the universe make much more sense.

View Post


True




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users