You will own nothing

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Who is so blinded by bias that they cannot see the error of their beliefs? I claim evolutionists are blinded by their bias, else they would try to incorporate scientific evidence which contradicts evolution.
Your claims can be dismissed accordingly.
 

Right Divider

Body part

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Yes, it is. If you try (unsuccessfully) to LIMIT "science" to the material world... that is, BY DEFINITION, materialism.

I understand that you have a materialist bias, but no... I would say that science involves ALL areas of human existence... that includes the immaterial.

https://kgov.com/list-of-things-that-are-not-physical
No, it isn't as you can familiarize yourself with by looking up the definition. Even the philosophical definition doesn't hold up. Sure, science is involved in areas besides the physical so no limiting going on here. It depends on the branch.
 

Right Divider

Body part
No, it isn't as you can familiarize yourself with by looking up the definition. Even the philosophical definition doesn't hold up. Sure, science is involved in areas besides the physical so no limiting going on here. It depends on the branch.
Read it again:
Science is simply the study of the natural world that God has given us with the minds God has given us.
AO's definition of science is most certainly limiting "science" to the NATURAL world (i.e., the PHYSICAL world).
 

marke

Well-known member
That still isn't "materialism". What else is science involved in, the supernatural?
Highly respected secular researchers have suggested aliens must have played a part in human development and the continuance of life on earth. Just because secularists are respected does not make their silly scientific speculations realistic.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1104/1104.4462.pdf - Aliens may eat us scientific paper.
"A core concern is that ETI will learn of our presence and quickly travel to Earth to eat or enslave
us." (P. 18.)

Crick and Orgel pointed out the “anomalous abundance of molybdenum” in organisms made it possible that life arose in an environment rich in molybdenum. The abundance of molybdenum in living organisms suggested that life started in a molybdenum rich environment and they found that the Earth is not sufficiently rich in molybdenum (this was later challenged as the amount of molybdenum found in the ocean is higher than in the Earth’s crust). Thus, they suggest that this difficulty could be resolved if life began in a molybdenum rich environment. Likewise, the fact that all organisms use the same codons for the same amino acids could be explained if life had arisen elsewhere and the organisms which were used to infect lifeless planets shared a language.
Crick and Orgel also suggest that the universe is sufficiently old that other intelligent civilizations could had arisen elsewhere. One of these other intelligent civilizations could have built a spaceship and seeded the universe with life. One can easily imagine a not too distant future where humans accept that our planet and all that lives within it will perish. In the unlikelihood that this is the only planet that harbors life in the universe its demise would leave a lifeless universe.
 

marke

Well-known member
No, it isn't as you can familiarize yourself with by looking up the definition. Even the philosophical definition doesn't hold up. Sure, science is involved in areas besides the physical so no limiting going on here. It depends on the branch.
Secular science cannot provide any reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth because secular science refuses to acknowledge the very real scientific possibility of God.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Secular science cannot provide any reasonable scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth because secular science refuses to acknowledge the very real scientific possibility of God.
More clueless...
 

Eric h

Well-known member
Highly respected secular researchers have suggested aliens must have played a part in human development and the continuance of life on earth.
Did these aliens have the power of God?
Did these same aliens create the universe?
Who created the aliens?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
So you've removed God from any guidance of your "evolution"? Are you a deist now?

The lame one here is you.
I've never understood people like barbie and ala who believe in a god-guided evolution. Evolution by its very nature is unjust and ungodly, dependent upon a mechanism of disease and death of the weakest organisms to drive the fairytale of the spontaneous generation of an advanced organism.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Your definition (if you agree with AO and you seem to) is limited to the "natural world".
Please explain how that works. Did God just set the natural world in motion and then sit back and watch? That's not what He said that He did. But is that what you believe?

I am... you are the childish one here.
If that's what you gleaned from AO's thread then you really weren't paying attention to it. Science itself is entirely neutral on the topic of evolution. It didn't come about by atheistic philosophy by way of. The theory became established because of the abundance of evidence that supports it, regardless of how much that may irk you. Alate showed that there isn't any need for cognitive dissonance with accepting such and having faith while simultaneously explaining in painstaking detail as to how young earth creationism doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny. She's not a deist and neither am I.

There's nothing 'childish' about anything I'm posting to you here but if snark is your 'go to' then hey, have at it as you will.
 
Top