Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

1…9798100102103…232

Comments

  • #2972
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    Intelligent Design Advocates and Theistic Evolutionists are two of these groups ... but it is a bit of a 'chicken and egg' ... if the 'God did it' hypothesis is never funded or allowed to develop ... it doesn't usually develop.

    It has just occurred to me. Even under the pain of death, true scientists like Gallileo challenged the view of creationists.

    'Truth will out.'

    There are numerous examples in history where orthodoxy has remained much longer than its credibility, where outdated ideas refuse to budge and give way to revised ideas that give a better understanding and make better predictions.

    It was remarked at the end of the nineteenth century that 'There is nothing more to be discovered in physics' then along came Einstein and we've been discovering things ever since.

    Reason trumps orthodoxy.

    Anyway, what exactly needs researching from a creationist point of view. You already have the answers don't you?

    All that is left for you is to now write a book and hope that someone will buy it.

    And if you pray properly, someone might even read it.


  • #2973
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I am unaware of any Conventional Science funding for either Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution research.
    This is prima facie evidence of an absolute bias against both of these Theist 'origins' hypotheses within conventional science.

    But that just means you're inferring that a bias exists because you feel that creationism is being blocked from funding rather the more logical reason. then reason being that there isn't any substantial evidence to support it.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2974
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Whew! Now that I've stopped laughing I can say how ridiculous your most recent rant is.

    Your hypothesis has been scientifically evaluated as scientifically unevaluable and as such does not reach the criteria required to receive funding from a board that is concerned with the administration of monies ear-marked for the scientific disciplines.
    ... so all Theist-friendly 'origins' hypotheses are 'evaluated as unevaluable' ... and only Atheist-friendly ones are funded.

    Please tell us what this indcates.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    You are not entitled to funds allocated to science in the same way that you are not entitled to funding from the athletics association or the arts council. It is not the responsibility of the science funders to fund research into creationism any more than it is the responsibility of the World Wildlife Fund or OxFam.

    Science is not in bed with atheism, evolution simply allowed for a symbiotic relationship to develop between them and this relationship is Naturally Selected.
    You're correct that there is a symbiotic relationship between Atheism and Materialistic Evolution ... and that is what I'm talking about.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Creationism is like a poodle in this respect, it has come to an evolutionary dead-end.

    I wonder if I could get funding in order to show the truth of my last statement. :P
    I don't know ... please tell us how you get on!!!!:)
    Masteroid wrote: »
    It has just occurred to me. Even under the pain of death, true scientists like Gallileo challenged the view of creationists.
    Gallileo was a Creationist himself.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    'Truth will out.'
    Only if it is allowed out.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    There are numerous examples in history where orthodoxy has remained much longer than its credibility, where outdated ideas refuse to budge and give way to revised ideas that give a better understanding and make better predictions.
    ... Abiogenesis/Evolution is a good example of an orthodoxy that has outlived its 'sell-by date'.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    It was remarked at the end of the nineteenth century that 'There is nothing more to be discovered in physics' then along came Einstein and we've been discovering things ever since.

    Reason trumps orthodoxy.
    Not without a great deal of 'screaming and kicking' when the 'orthodoxy' happens to be somebody's worldview.
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Anyway, what exactly needs researching from a creationist point of view. You already have the answers don't you?
    We have some answers ... but many questions remain to be answered.
    ... like why conventional science funding is provided to Atheist-friendly 'origins' research ... and never provided to Theist-friendly 'origins' research


  • #2975
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    But that just means you're inferring that a bias exists because you feel that creationism is being blocked from funding rather the more logical reason. then reason being that there isn't any substantial evidence to support it.
    I have repeatedly made it clear that I'm not talking about Creationism ... I'm talking about the complete lack of funding for all Theistic 'origins' hypotheses.

    ... and your statement that 'there isn't any substantial evidence to support it (Creationism)' is doing precisely what you accuse Creationists of doing ... making assumptions that 'fit' your biases.


  • #2976
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I have repeatedly made it clear that I'm not talking about Creationism ... I'm talking about the complete lack of funding for all Theistic 'origins' hypotheses.
    but you mentioned ID (rebranded creationism) and theistic evolution.

    evolution is being invested based on the evidence, so theistic evolution is quite possible to be funded pending the appropriate pilot data.

    ID and creationism have to get the basic evidence together if they want the funding.
    ... and your statement that 'there isn't any substantial evidence to support it (Creationism)' is doing precisely what you accuse Creationists of doing ... making assumptions that 'fit' your biases.
    Incorrect. I'm basing my statement on current scientific understandings.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #2977
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    but you mentioned ID (rebranded creationism) and theistic evolution.

    evolution is being invested based on the evidence, so theistic evolution is quite possible to be funded pending the appropriate pilot data.

    ID and creationism have to get the basic evidence together if they want the funding.
    ... the 'right' basic evidence as determined by practical Atheism ... no thanks ... and no chance.
    koth wrote: »
    Incorrect. I'm basing my statement on current scientific understandings.
    ... as determined through the lens of practical Atheism.
    BTW, I'm a practical atheist myself when it comes to operative day to day science, like the boiling kettle example ... the issue that I'm complaining about is applying practical atheism exclusively to the 'origins' issue ... where there are two equally valid hypotheses to be considered and evaluated.


  • #2978
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... the 'right' basic evidence as determined by practical Atheism ... no thanks ... and no chance.

    ... as determined through the lens of practical Atheism.

    I give up. You clearly don't want to engage in a discussion and would rather regurgitate the same unfounded claims about the scientific community ad infinitum.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2979
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    I give up. You clearly don't want to engage in a discussion and would rather regurgitate the same unfounded claims about the scientific community ad infinitum.
    I'm fully engaging with every point being made and every posting put up.

    The fact that conventional science has never funded any Theist-friendly 'origins' research ... and routinely funds Atheist-friendly 'origins' research is established beyond all doubt.
    Nobody can deny it ... and nobody on this thread has denied it either.

    The argument that all Thesitic 'origins' hypotheses are 'rubbish' and only Atheistic 'origins' hypotheses are 'brilliant' also logically 'cuts no ice' either.


  • #2980
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    ... so all Theist-friendly 'origins' hypotheses are 'evaluated as unevaluable' ... and only Atheist-friendly ones are funded.

    Please tell us what this indcates.

    It indicates that either you can't read or you simply want to frustrate reason with your misrepresentation of all positions presented to you in order to make us clear off and leave you to use this thread as a kind of 0898 Tarot Tarot Tarot line by way of which you can attract weak and vulnerable people into your web of deceit.

    Not gonna happen dude.;)


  • #2981
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    It indicates that either you can't read or you simply want to frustrate reason with your misrepresentation of all positions presented to you in order to make us clear off and leave you to use this thread as a kind of 0898 Tarot Tarot Tarot line by way of which you can attract weak and vulnerable people into your web of deceit.

    Not gonna happen dude.;)
    ... and so the ad hominems return.

    ... anyway, can somebody please tell us what the following indicates, without engaging in ad hominems?

    ... all Theist-friendly 'origins' hypotheses are 'evaluated as unevaluable' ... and only Atheist-friendly ones are funded.


  • Advertisement
  • #2982
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... so we're back to more ad hominems.

    ... anyway, can somebody please tell us what the following indicates, without engaging in ad hominems?

    ... all Theist-friendly 'origins' hypotheses are 'evaluated as unevaluable' ... and only Atheist-friendly ones are funded.

    Can you explain how scientists of various religious stripes are capable of working on evolution in a manner that is independent of the 'atheist friendly' model you propose?

    And it stills begs the question of why the creationist camp can't convince the scientific community or the general public that Genesis is a factual story?

    Also, what experiments would you be proposing be carried out to investigate Gods hand in evolution? What is currently unexplained or only possibly explained by adding in a deity? Is this not a cop-out to avoid the difficult questions?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2983
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Can you explain how scientists of various religious stripes are capable of working on evolution in a manner that is independent of the 'atheist friendly' model you propose?
    How do they do it?.
    koth wrote: »
    And it stills begs the question of why the creationist camp can't convince the scientific community or the general public that Genesis is a factual story?
    Bias ... access to media/publicity ... who knows.
    ... the big question remains as to why only the symbiosis between Atheism and Materialistic Evolution is funded by conventional science ... and no other 'origins' hypothesis is countenanced.
    koth wrote: »
    Also, what experiments would you be proposing be carried out to investigate Gods hand in evolution? What is currently unexplained or only possibly explained by adding in a deity? Is this not a cop-out to avoid the difficult questions?
    A good start would be a scientific investigation into the large gaps observed between different taxonomic Families that can't be bridged by random materialistic processes like mutagenesis.
    Another study could be funded on the logical and scientific weaknesses of abiogenesis.


  • #2984
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    ... and so the ad hominems return.

    ... anyway, can somebody please tell us what the following indicates, without engaging in ad hominems?

    ... all Theist-friendly 'origins' hypotheses are 'evaluated as unevaluable' ... and only Atheist-friendly ones are funded.

    Neither is true - only science-friendly origins hypotheses are funded.

    Why don't you give Comic Relief a try?


  • #2985
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    How do they do it?.

    ... the big question remains as to why only the symbiosis between Atheism and Materialistic Evolution is funded by conventional science ... and no other 'origins' hypothesis is countenanced.

    It's not. The symbiotic relationship is coincidental.

    Seriously though, you don't have a valid hypothesis just by virtue of the fact that you vouch for it. It is entirely unsupported by any evidence at all and observations by proper scientists contradict your starting hypothesis anyway.

    Now J C, what is it you don't understand about abiogenesis?


  • #2986
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    Neither is true - only science-friendly origins hypotheses are funded.
    ... using a definition of 'science' that excludes all investigation of supernatural causes ... even when, in the case of 'origins', there is a logical and very credible alternative to the 'it did itself' hypothesis ... which is a supernatural cause.


  • #2987
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    and what logical reason do we have for abandoning all scientific discovery about evolution? what logical reasons are they to think all the scientists got it wrong and actually it was 'God that did it'?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2988
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    It's not. The symbiotic relationship is coincidental.
    ... just like it is 'coincidental' that the 'Pope is a Catholic' !!!:)
    Masteroid wrote: »
    Seriously though, you don't have a valid hypothesis just by virtue of the fact that you vouch for it. It is entirely unsupported by any evidence at all and observations by proper scientists contradict your starting hypothesis anyway.
    How do they know this ... if the research hasn't been carried out, in the first place?

    Masteroid wrote: »
    Now J C, what is it you don't understand about abiogenesis?
    For a start, how it could logically ever occur ... but this shouldn't stop research into it ... just like research into the Intelligent Design hypothesis shouldn't be 'strangled at birth' either. Who can tell where research into either of these hypotheses may lead?


  • #2989
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    and what logical reason do we have for abandoning all scientific discovery about evolution? what logical reasons are they to think all the scientists got it wrong and actually it was 'God that did it'?
    I'm not asking for the abandonment of scientific discovery about evolution ... all I'm asking for is some parity of esteem being given to it's competitor theory ... that 'God did it'.

    ... and 'all scientists' have neither got it wrong or right ... as they haven't really got anywhere with proving the Abiogenesis hypothesis ... and there are so many gaps in the Evolution from 'Pondkind to Mankind' hypothesis that it could be called a 'Theory of the Gaps' instead ... and it is therefore very much 'a work in progress'.


  • #2990
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    I am unaware of any Conventional Science funding for either Intelligent Design or Theistic Evolution research.
    This is prima facie evidence of a bias against both of these Theist 'origins' hypotheses within conventional science.
    And again, this is because it's IMPOSSIBLE to form a testable hypothesis and a programme of work to demonstrate that 'god dunnit'.

    I don't even know why I'm arguing this, it so stupid. And futile with someone who clearly has no idea of how science or appropriate funding works.

    JC. There are people out there doing research that might call into question certain aspects of evolutionary theory. These people may or may not be 'creationists' and I don't know if their motivation for their research is a genuine attempt to further evolutionary theory or driven by their own desire to support the premise that 'god dunnit'. I have seen papers in high impact journals studying the plausibility of assumed mutation rates or mechanisms in proteins, and so on.

    This work, from conventional scientists, in conventional disciplines, at conventional academic institutes, using conventional methods, will be conventionally funded. This is because at no point during the funding process will those involved have declared that they are looking for 'god's signature' (or other nonsense), regardless of what their beliefs are. In the same way, when I apply for money, I never declare any 'materialistic origins' support.

    These people will have framed their proposal as a body of work that can be tested via a series of experiments. That's science. There's no other way.

    If they (and/or you) then choose to 'interpret' their data, either in the discussion section of a peer-reviewed article (unlikely) or in more popular media (more likely), as 'god dunnit', that's your call. Some people will agree, more will disagree, some won't care about either 'interpretation'.

    But please understand (because I don't think you do, and I think you're missing a major point here):
    'Interpretations' aren't funded, 'experiments' are.


  • #2991
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    And again, this is because it's IMPOSSIBLE to form a testable hypothesis and a programme of work to demonstrate that 'god dunnit'.
    It is eminently possible to construct a testable hypothesis that 'an Intelligence did it' ... that's the premise upon which the SETI project is based ... and similar tests can be applied to the information found in living organisms.
    The science of intelligent action identification is in its infancy ... but there is no reason to 'strangle it at birth' ... just because it might find evidence for Divine Intelligence in action.
    Indeed there is every reason, from a General Theist perspective, to support such research, wherever it may lead.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I don't even know why I'm arguing this, it so stupid. And futile with someone who clearly has no idea of how science or appropriate funding works.

    JC. There are people out there doing research that might call into question certain aspects of evolutionary theory. These people may or may not be 'creationists' and I don't know if their motivation for their research is a genuine attempt to further evolutionary theory or driven by their own desire to support the premise that 'god dunnit'. I have seen papers in high impact journals studying the plausibility of assumed mutation rates or mechanisms in proteins, and so on.
    They may call into question 'certain aspects' of Evolution as long as their research is based on the premise that 'it all did itself'.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    This work, from conventional scientists, in conventional disciplines, at conventional academic institutes, using conventional methods, will be conventionally funded. This is because at no point during the funding process will those involved have declared that they are looking for 'god's signature' (or other nonsense), regardless of what their beliefs are.
    That's fine when the research being conducted is on issues of operative science (like cures for cancer and producing more and better food, for example) ... we are all 'practical atheists' when it comes to this work.

    However, when it comes to the 'origins' issue, where there are deeply held opposing beliefs on the issue ... and two competing valid hypotheses ... the forensic discovery / non-discovery of an 'intelligent signature' within life, for example, would be very important indeed ... for both Atheists and Theists ... so why only fund research into one side of the issue?

    Your summary dismissal as 'nonesense', of any research aimed at identifying a signal/signature of intelligent action within living organisms, (in line with a Theistic 'origins' hypothesis) is precisely the type of Atheist bias and disrespect for Theistic ideas that is prevalent within conventional 'origins' science, and that I am complaining about.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    These people may or may not be 'creationists' and I don't know if their motivation for their research is a genuine attempt to further evolutionary theory or driven by their own desire to support the premise that 'god dunnit'.
    This is another aspect of the bias that I'm talking about ... the idea that everybody should be 'genuinely attempting to further evolutionary theory' ... which is in direct contradiction of the repeated claim by Evolutionists on this thread that they follow where the evidence leads ... except, by the looks of it, when the evidence leads away from 'evolution'.

    doctoremma wrote: »
    These people will have framed their proposal as a body of work that can be tested via a series of experiments. That's science. There's no other way.

    If they (and/or you) then choose to 'interpret' their data, either in the discussion section of a peer-reviewed article (unlikely) or in more popular media (more likely), as 'god dunnit', that's your call. Some people will agree, more will disagree, some won't care about either 'interpretation'.

    But please understand (because I don't think you do, and I think you're missing a major point here):
    'Interpretations' aren't funded, 'experiments' are.
    What experiments can be conducted in relation to the 'fossil record', for example? All that can be done is forensic research that observes and reports ... and interprets the evidence gleaned by the paleontologist or any other forensic scientist who interprets the data. Experimentation is to operative science what observation and interpretation is to forensic science.


  • Advertisement
  • #2992
    maguffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    J C wrote: »
    It is eminently possible to construct a testable hypothesis that 'an Intelligence did it' ... that's the premise upon which the SETI project is based

    The premise for SETI was to search for life, its origins, the environment in which life develops, and its ultimate fate…….not the pre-supposition that ‘an Intelligence did it’
    However, when it comes to the 'origins' issue, where there are deeply held opposing beliefs on the issue ... and two competing valid hypotheses ... the forensic discovery / non-discovery of an 'intelligent signature' within life, for example, would be very important indeed ... for both Atheists and Theists ... so why only fund research into one side of the issue?

    You go on ad nauseum about lack of funding....maybe you should read this article about funding creationism....

    http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/funding-the-creationism-industry/

    What experiments can be conducted in relation to the 'fossil record', for example? All that can be done is forensic research that observes and reports ... and interprets the evidence gleaned by the paleontologist or any other forensic scientist who interprets the data. Experimentation is to operative science what observation and interpretation is to forensic science.

    Get your sciences right......


    Forensic science (often shortenedto forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences and technologies to investigate and establish facts of interest in relation to criminal or civil law...NOT evolutionary science!!

    Paleontology falls into geology but can be clasified asbiology or earth sciences. It is in geology because paleontology means fossilscience,and fossils are not part of biology.


  • #2993
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    maguffin wrote: »
    The premise for SETI was to search for life, its origins, the environment in which life develops, and its ultimate fate…….not the pre-supposition that ‘an Intelligence did it’
    ... and how do you think that such a search could be done at distances measured in light years ?
    I think the clue is in the title SETI ... the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.
    The search is for evidence of Intelligence ... and one way that it is pursued is by using radio-telescopes to scan the sky for intelligently produced signals/information.
    ... so SETI is searching for signals/information that an (ET) Intelligence did.
    The science developed for identifying ET Intelligent activity can also be used to identify other Intelligent activity ... such as that found in living systems and processes.

    Their mission statement says it all:-
    SETI, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, is an exploratory science that seeks evidence of life in the universe by looking for some signature of its technology.

    maguffin wrote: »
    You go on ad nauseum about lack of funding....maybe you should read this article about funding creationism....

    http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/funding-the-creationism-industry/
    I've never complained about the adequacy of funding for Creation Science ... its quite adequate.

    What I'm complaining about is the total lack of funding for 'ordinary' Theistic 'origins' hypotheses by publicly funded conventional science ... which includes public money provided by Theists.
    There is a lack of respect for Theist 'origins' hypotheses exemplified by Doctoremma's statement that "This is because at no point during the funding process will those involved have declared that they are looking for 'god's signature' (or other nonsense), regardless of what their beliefs are."
    This implies that funding could easily be pulled if the merest suspicion were aroused that somebody was looking for God's signature in life ... an entirely legitimate scientific pursuit for a Theistic Evolutionist, for example.


  • #2994
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    what experiments would creationism carry out to provide some data to potential funders to show it's a worthwhile investment?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2995
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    maguffin
    Get your sciences right......

    Forensic science (often shortenedto forensics) is the application of a broad spectrum of sciences and technologies to investigate and establish facts of interest in relation to criminal or civil law...NOT evolutionary science!!

    Paleontology falls into geology but can be clasified asbiology or earth sciences. It is in geology because paleontology means fossilscience,and fossils are not part of biology.
    The sciences that are used to evaluate the evidence for 'Evolution from Pondkind to Mankind' are all forensic sciences.
    They are using various sciences, like you say, to investigate and establish facts in relation to events (like fossil and rock deposition, for example) that happened at a distance in time and space ... just like criminal forensics does the same in relation to criminal events that happened at a distance in time and space.


  • #2996
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    what experiments would creationism carry out to provide some data to potential funders to show it's a worthwhile investment?
    Like I have said, Creation Science is already adequately funded ... its other Theists that I am concerned about ... and particulary the general lack of respect for Theistic 'origins' hypotheses ... and therefore General Theist beliefs within conventional science.


  • #2997
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Like I have said, Creation Science is already adequately funded ... its other Theists that I am concerned about ... and particulary the general lack of respect for Theistic 'origins' hypotheses ... and therfore General Theist beliefs within conventional science.

    evolution wasn't respected when it first appeared in the scientific community. but through hard work, collecting of data/evidence the scientific world accepted it. Why should 'God did it' ideas be allowed skip that part of the process? Why should it be given equal parity without doing the legwork?

    Sounds like pleading for special treatment for creationism/ theistic origin ideas.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2998
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    evolution wasn't respected when it first appeared in the scientific community. but through hard work, collecting of data/evidence the scientific world accepted it. Why should 'God did it' ideas be allowed skip that part of the process? Why should it be given equal parity without doing the legwork?

    Sounds like pleading for special treatment for creationism/ theistic origin ideas.
    Two wrongs don't make a right ... we've come a long way in terms of respect for equality and diversity since the Victorian era ... or at least, that is what an Evolutionist who is an Atheist told me recently - and I'd like to believe him.


  • #2999
    maguffin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 282 ✭✭maguffin


    J C wrote: »
    ...

    What I'm complaining about is the total lack of funding for 'ordinary' Theistic 'origins' hypotheses by publicly funded conventional science ... which includes public money provided by Theists.

    WHO are these ' ordinary Theists' that you speak of....which 'god' do they follow??? are they different from those mentioned in the article I pointed you at??? Did you actually read the article, I wonder?? Are you a 'different' sort of Theist than others???

    This reflects a total lack of respect for Theist 'origins' hypotheses exemplified by Doctoremma's statement that "This is because at no point during the funding process will those involved have declared that they are looking for 'god's signature' (or other nonsense), regardless of what their beliefs are."
    This implies that a 'witch hunt' could easily result if the merest suspicion were aroused that somebody was looking for God's signature in life ... an entirely legitimate scientific pursuit for a Theistic Evolutionist, for example.

    What 'signature' could a supernatural being such as a 'god' emit, I wonder? Science doesn't deal in the supernatural...it deals with the reality of hard, measurable data.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kothviewpost.gif
    what experiments would creationism carry out to provide some data to potential funders to show it's a worthwhile investment?
    Like I have said, Creation Science is already adequately funded ... its other Theists that I am concerned about ... and particulary the general lack of respect for Theistic 'origins' hypotheses ... and therefore General Theist beliefs within conventional science.

    This not an answer to the question asked (ie. what experiments would be used...). If you have no valid answer then at least have the courage to admit it!!


  • #3000
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Two wrongs don't make a right.

    but it wasn't wrong that evolution had to prove itself by evidence/data collection :confused:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #3001
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    but it wasn't wrong that evolution had to prove itself by evidence/data collection :confused:
    'Evolution from Pondkind to Mankind' still hasn't proven itself ... what was wrong was that initially, it wasn't allowed to try and prove itself ... and be given the funding to do so.


Advertisement