Why don't creationists publish?

[JudgeRightly]

I think the point Redfern would make is that it doesn't matter what "book is in your hand"; it doesn't matter what you believe; it doesn't matter what your idea is: The scientific method is available to everyone.

As long as you're willing to outline an idea you believe — without equivocation — leave it open to testing and falsification, and — most importantly — reject the idea of the evidence shows it is impossible, you're a potential scientist.

That the Bible is helpful to archaeologists doesn't add much to the discussion over what science is.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

And I would agree with that. [MENTION=5148]redfern[/MENTION]

 

[Silent Hunter]

There is no supernatural, there are only things that are still far beyond our understanding. The minute you declare something as supernatural, you surround it with a shield of ignorance.

"Supernatural" simply means "outside or beyond nature/the universe."

Super - outside of, beyond
Natural - nature

God is supernatural, he is outside of the universe, not subject to it's laws, because He created it.

Other religions, not just Christians, make similar claims about their God(s). But science is conducted without regard to any religion’s beliefs. There are many things science does not yet understand, but I know of nothing that deals with nature that science is proscribed from trying to learn about and understand.

Do you know of any?

According to your "science": God.

Please describe, in detail, how "science" should proceed in exploring and "learn(ing) about and understand(ing)" something "outside of the universe, not subject to it's (the universes') laws".

I'm certain a reward in Sweden awaits your insight.

 

[Jonahdog]

Which applies only to pagan deities... God can know everything that can be known. He can't know something that can't be known.

Well then your deity knows the universe is older than 10,000+/- years.More like 13.8 billion plus. Glad that is settled.

 

[Right Divider]

Please describe, in detail, how "science" should proceed in exploring and "learn(ing) about and understand(ing)" something "outside of the universe, not subject to it's (the universes') laws".

I'm certain a reward in Sweden awaits your insight.

Listen to what He says. It's just that easy.

Just because you cannot put God under your microscope .... too bad for your religion.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Please describe, in detail, how "science" should proceed in exploring and "learn(ing) about and understand(ing)" something "outside of the universe, not subject to it's (the universes') laws".

I'm certain a reward in Sweden awaits your insight.

Listen to what He says. It's just that easy.

As you said, "Considering that God has been quiet for nearly the past 2000 years, there hasn't been any active guidance...", there hasn't been much to listen to and an obviously man-made book does you no favors.

Just because you cannot put God under your microscope .... too bad for your religion.

... well, YOU said it was possible, I'm just looking for your deep insight on how "science" should proceed.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well then your deity knows the universe is older than 10,000+/- years.More like 13.8 billion plus. Glad that is settled.

This is question begging at it's finest.

Jonah, do you not know how to make rational arguments?

 

[JudgeRightly]

As you said, "Considering that God has been quiet for nearly the past 2000 years, there hasn't been any active guidance...", there hasn't been much to listen to and an obviously man-made book does you no favors.

This is question begging.

... well, YOU said it was possible, I'm just looking for your deep insight on how "science" should proceed.

And this us more question begging, based on the previous question begging.

SH, do you not know how to make rational arguments?

 

[Right Divider]

As you said, "Considering that God has been quiet for nearly the past 2000 years, there hasn't been any active guidance...", there hasn't been much to listen to and an obviously man-made book does you no favors.

I didn't say that. You cannot even keep simple facts straight and yet we are supposed to follow your lead?

... well, YOU said it was possible, I'm just looking for your deep insight on how "science" should proceed.

Apparently you believe that ALL science is the sort of operational science of the type that gives us technological advancement. It's not. Science simply means "knowledge" and there are various types of knowledge and various ways that we get knowledge. One is revelation... like the type that God uses and you ignore.

 

[Stripe]

Please describe, in detail, how "science" should proceed in exploring and "learn(ing) about and understand(ing)" something "outside of the universe, not subject to it's (the universes') laws".

I'm certain a reward in Sweden awaits your insight.

I just outlined it. :up:

Notice how an awards ceremony doesn't play a part. Darwinists love to pretend it does.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[6days]

When do you declare something as supernatural?

Don't confuse your beliefs or my beliefs about the past with operational science. Do you have a willingness to follow evidence that seems to lead to a supernatural creation?

There is no supernatural, there are only things that are still far beyond our understanding.

So, you start with that conclusion, and shoehorn interpretations to fit your beliefs. (Maybe nothing created everything, life from non-life, multiverse Etc).

Look at wings seen in the animal world. Sometimes we see species where the wings barely give any help at all, and other times we see wings that carry birds on flights of thousands of miles without landing....

You dodged the question which was "If bad design is evidence against an intelligent Creator, (Dawkins and many others argue that) then is good design evidence for an intelligent creator?

We can discuss "crappy" wings if you wish. But first ask yourself if the wings have lost function from an earlier design?Or, is it possible that the wings have a function which you are ignoring?

Assuming organs such as the appendix is a useless biological leftover.

Multiple times in past conversations it has been specifically pointed out to you that concluding something is vestigial is not, and never has been, conditional on it being useless.

Again you Dodge the argument. I said nothing about (false) vestigial arguments. I did point out how false evolutionary beliefs lead to false conclusions. The appendix was called a useless biological remnant... That wasn't science, but it was an interpretation based on false beliefs.

Then where are the published scientific studies from the hardcore creationists dealing with places they differ with secular science?

If you are interested in published scientific articles from 'hardcore creationists,' that deal with empirical science, in secular journals... there are plenty. If you are interested in articles from the same scientists that deal with origins science, then check out journals that cater to their specific beliefs. IOW, A scientist with evolutionary beliefs is unlikely to get published in a journal that caters to intelligent design or Biblical creation. Likewise a Biblical creationist does not expect to have his beliefs published in a journal that caters to evolutionary beliefs.

 

[Silent Hunter]

As you said, "Considering that God has been quiet for nearly the past 2000 years, there hasn't been any active guidance...", there hasn't been much to listen to and an obviously man-made book does you no favors.

This is question begging.

It would be if I had said something having no evidence... your preferred "holy book" was unquestionably written by men (and possibly a woman or two).

Question begging would be to claim your preferred "holy book" was written by/inspired/dictated by your personal preferred deity.

... well, YOU said it was possible, I'm just looking for your deep insight on how "science" should proceed.

And this us more question begging, based on the previous question begging.

No it isn't, for reasons presented prior.

As you said, "Considering that God has been quiet for nearly the past 2000 years, there hasn't been any active guidance...", there hasn't been much to listen to and an obviously man-made book does you no favors.

I didn't say that. You cannot even keep simple facts straight and yet we are supposed to follow your lead?

No?

Considering that God has been quiet for nearly the past 2000 years, there hasn't been any active guidance...

:liberals:

... well, YOU said it was possible, I'm just looking for your deep insight on how "science" should proceed.

Apparently you believe that ALL science is the sort of operational science of the type that gives us technological advancement. It's not.

No, sometimes "science" allows us to deduce things that were unknown using prior "knowledge". Technological advancement is neither required nor a requirement for "science" to be beneficial.

It's rather rude and presumptuous of you to make pronouncements about what I understand science does and doesn't do, a common fault among people (particularly fundamentalist christians) who think they have the clairvoyance to read minds.

Science simply means "knowledge" and there are various types of knowledge and various ways that we get knowledge.

Equivocate much?

"Science", as professional scientists and I use the word, "is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved October 16, 2011. 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.)

One is revelation... like the type that God uses and you ignore.

... and you accuse me of begging the question? Hilarious.

SH, do you not know how to make rational arguments?

Absolutely. Do you?

 

[Right Divider]

No?
:liberals:

Keep scratching.... JudgeRightly is NOT, Right Divider.
Again, someone that can't even keep this straight is the one that is going to teach us all? :rotfl:

No, sometimes "science" allows us to deduce things that were unknown using prior "knowledge". Technological advancement is neither required nor a requirement for "science" to be beneficial.

It's very appropriate that you put your version of "science" in quotation marks. Apparently you are too dense to understand what I was talking about. That figures.

My point was that the type of science that produces technology is NOT the only kind of science. For example, you cannot use repeated experimentation to obtain historical knowledge. Nor can you use repeated experimentation to validate knowledge gained by revelation, especially from a source like the Creator of all things.

It's rather rude and presumptuous of you to make pronouncements about what I understand science does and doesn't do, a common fault among people (particularly fundamentalist christians) who think they have the clairvoyance to read minds.

You've proven from your posts that you do not understand it and have confirmed it again.

Equivocate much?

That was not equivocation. Another of your many confused statements.

"Science", as professional scientists and I use the word, "is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved October 16, 2011. 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.)

Once AGAIN, that is NOT the only kind of science.

... and you accuse me of begging the question? Hilarious.

Confusing ME with JudgeRightly again. HILARIOUS.

You might start by replying to ONE of us OR the other. Then you might not be so confused. But your ignorance will remain.

 

[Stripe]

Question begging would be to claim your preferred "holy book" was written by/inspired/dictated by your personal preferred deity.

Nope.

Question begging is when you use an assertion as evidence. You can assert anything you like, but you can't assume the truth of that assertion when presenting reasons to believe it.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

JudgeRightly is NOT, Right Divider.

:doh: Sorry about that. It's hard distinguishing one fundamentalist christian from another fundamentalist christian, a byproduct of Poe's Law and working from a cell phone.

Again, someone that can't even keep this straight is the one that is going to teach us all?

I suppose when you have nothing constructive to offer, ridicule is a good fall back position and a mainstay of fundamentalist christianity from my experience. Ad hominems only weaken YOUR argument, not mine.

No, sometimes "science" allows us to deduce things that were unknown using prior "knowledge". Technological advancement is neither required nor a requirement for "science" to be beneficial.

It's very appropriate that you put your version of "science" in quotation marks.

There is no "my" version of "science". Perhaps it escaped your attention, I also put "knowledge" in quotation such that "science" (a methodology for gaining "knowledge"} isn't confused with "knowledge" (a consequence of scientific methodology) but I won't insult you for your failure to perceive the somewhat less than clear distinction I was attempting to make.

Apparently you are too dense to understand what I was talking about. That figures.

I suppose when you have nothing constructive to offer, ridicule is a good fall back position and a mainstay of fundamentalist christianity from my experience. Ad hominems only weaken YOUR argument, not mine.

My point was that the type of science that produces technology is NOT the only kind of science.

I'll post this again because it seems you missed it in your eagerness to be insulting rather than civil...

"Technological advancement is neither required nor a requirement for "science" to be beneficial."

For example, you cannot use repeated experimentation to obtain historical knowledge.

"Science"... is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about (insert your desired objective here)."

Nor can you use repeated experimentation to validate knowledge gained by revelation, especially from a source like the Creator of all things.

Rewording the same argument ("One is revelation... like the type that God uses and you ignore.") doesn't make it less begging the question.

Invoking Godwin's Law, how does one distinguish between, "My personal preferred version of deity "revealed" to me "he" wanted me to murder six-million Jews", from something less extreme?

Please explain, in detail, how "science", as a systematic enterprise, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the creator of all things.

It's rather rude and presumptuous of you to make pronouncements about what I understand science does and doesn't do, a common fault among people (particularly fundamentalist christians) who think they have the clairvoyance to read minds.

You've proven from your posts that you do not understand it and have confirmed it again.

Your continued need to insult is limitless... not the best way to construct a convincing argument or to make friends and influence people but to each his own.

Equivocate much?

That was not equivocation. Another of your many confused statements.

"Science" (a methodology for gaining "knowledge"} isn't to be confused with "knowledge" (a consequence of scientific methodology) but I won't insult you for your failure to perceive the somewhat less than clear distinction I was attempting to make.

"Science", as professional scientists and I use the word, "is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved October 16, 2011. 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.)

Once AGAIN, that is NOT the only kind of science.

Sure it is. Perhaps if you tried inserting, "the past" (from your "historical" example above), in place of "the universe" you'd see the definition works for everything except, perhaps, that which is "revealed" from your personal preferred concept of deity.

... and you accuse me of begging the question? Hilarious.

Confusing ME with JudgeRightly again. HILARIOUS.

Yeah, when you pointed out my (rather minor) error (as explained above) I had a chuckle as well. Again, sorry about that, Chief.

You might start by replying to ONE of us OR the other.Then you might not be so confused.

There's not much difference between one fundamentalist christian and another fundamentalist christian from my perspective but I will endeavor to demark the line between one and the other.

But your ignorance will remain.

I bet you just couldn't wait to get in one last dig... could you? We can either have a civil discourse or none at all... your choice.

 

[redfern]

Even secular archaeologists will have a Bible nearby when excavating near where places that are mentioned in the Bible should be.

You make a good point. Even beyond finding that geographical data unique to one religion is correct, what if a dramatic discovery of something religiously momentous were actually found and verified – such as the remains of an ancient ship with specific details that showed it was likely Noah’s Ark?

There are many things science does not yet understand, but I know of nothing that deals with nature that science is proscribed from trying to learn about and understand.

Do you know of any?

Could you rephrase your statement, please?

I was thinking of your statement about science not being able to investigate the supernatural. I am not aware of anything that science has recognized as being immune from study – i.e. “supernatural’.

 

[redfern]

God can know everything that can be known. He can't know something that can't be known.

JR, your statement about the limits on what God can know seems to be at variance with what 6days said on the subject:

The God of Scripture is perfect. There is no limit to his understanding, knowing the past and the future.

 

[redfern]

I know of nothing that deals with nature that science is proscribed from trying to learn about and understand.

Do you know of any?

According to your "science": God.

Not true. When (if) God chisels Ten Commandments in a slab of rock, that is a very physical action. Gimme that slab of rock, and I will have a whole team of scientists analyzing it – depth of characters engraved, chemical composition of the rock, check to see if can be radioactively dated, evidence of crystals or lamina in the rock, metamorphic? Etc. etc. God separates the Red Sea – a bunch of hydrodynamic things to study in that event.

I think a large part of the issue is that, as JR says:

God has been quiet for nearly the past 2000 years …

I am a wee bit suspicious when a god chooses to go into hiding when science comes into fruition.

 

[Right Divider]

Not true. When (if) God chisels Ten Commandments in a slab of rock, that is a very physical action. Gimme that slab of rock, and I will have a whole team of scientists analyzing it – depth of characters engraved, chemical composition of the rock, check to see if can be radioactively dated, evidence of crystals or lamina in the rock, metamorphic? Etc. etc. God separates the Red Sea – a bunch of hydrodynamic things to study in that event.

Human arrogance is nothing new.

I am a wee bit suspicious when a god chooses to go into hiding when science comes into fruition.

There was also a period of about 400 years between Malachi and Matthew... it's not something new for God to be quiet for a time.

"Science come to fruition"? Very funny.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Please describe, in detail, how "science" should proceed in exploring and "learn(ing) about and understand(ing)" something "outside of the universe, not subject to it's (the universes') laws".

I just outlined it. :up:

Great! Perhaps you would be so kind as to give us the post number/link to or restate this great epiphany, though I suspect you won't but I'd be thrilled if you'd prove me wrong.

I'm certain a reward in Sweden awaits your insight.

Notice how an awards ceremony doesn't play a part. Darwinists love to pretend it does.

That thought never crossed my mind. I was just thinking if you had access to a way of showing evidence for and testing the supernatural, you, in your great altruism, would want to share this insight with the world... while retaining the copyright of course.

 

[Right Divider]

:doh: Sorry about that. It's hard distinguishing one fundamentalist christian from another fundamentalist christian, a byproduct of Poe's Law and working from a cell phone.

What an incredibly childish and lame excuse for a total lack of paying attention.

I suppose when you have nothing constructive to offer, ridicule is a good fall back position and a mainstay of fundamentalist christianity from my experience. Ad hominems only weaken YOUR argument, not mine.

It's not ad hominem. If you can't keep something so simple as two users straight, your judgement in general is suspect.

There is no "my" version of "science". Perhaps it escaped your attention, I also put "knowledge" in quotation such that "science" (a methodology for gaining "knowledge"} isn't confused with "knowledge" (a consequence of scientific methodology) but I won't insult you for your failure to perceive the somewhat less than clear distinction I was attempting to make.

Once AGAIN, there are different types of science that require different types of methodologies.

I suppose when you have nothing constructive to offer, ridicule is a good fall back position and a mainstay of fundamentalist christianity from my experience. Ad hominems only weaken YOUR argument, not mine.

Boo hoo.

I'll post this again because it seems you missed it in your eagerness to be insulting rather than civil...

"Technological advancement is neither required nor a requirement for "science" to be beneficial."

And, once again, I will point out that this is irrelevant.

"Science"... is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about (insert your desired objective here)."

ONCE AGAIN, this is about ONE TYPE of science and is NOT relevant to other types of science.

Rewording the same argument ("One is revelation... like the type that God uses and you ignore.") doesn't make it less begging the question.

Once again, you do not know what you're talking about. If there is a God (and there is) that gives knowledge by revelation (and He did), your operation science (once AGAIN, the kind that produces technology) has no ground.

Invoking Godwin's Law, how does one distinguish between, "My personal preferred version of deity "revealed" to me "he" wanted me to murder six-million Jews", from something less extreme?

Your love of Internet memes is duly noted.

Please explain, in detail, how "science", as a systematic enterprise, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the creator of all things.

Operational science cannot. But you cannot understand this simple fact.

Your continued need to insult is limitless... not the best way to construct a convincing argument or to make friends and influence people but to each his own.

Stating facts about your lack of understanding may appear to you as insults. Too bad.

"Science" (a methodology for gaining "knowledge"} isn't to be confused with "knowledge" (a consequence of scientific methodology) but I won't insult you for your failure to perceive the somewhat less than clear distinction I was attempting to make.

Nobody was confusing the methods with the results. You are confusing the various methods of the various types of science.

Sure it is. Perhaps if you tried inserting, "the past" (from your "historical" example above), in place of "the universe" you'd see the definition works for everything except, perhaps, that which is "revealed" from your personal preferred concept of deity.

Your total confusion remains.

Yeah, when you pointed out my (rather minor) error (as explained above) I had a chuckle as well. Again, sorry about that, Chief.

A "minor" error, like your inability to understand the various types of science.

There's not much difference between one fundamentalist christian and another fundamentalist christian from my perspective but I will endeavor to demark the line between one and the other.

Well good for you.

I bet you just couldn't wait to get in one last dig... could you? We can either have a civil discourse or none at all... your choice.

Again... boo hoo.