Joined: Sep. 2007
|Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 14 2009,18:40)|
|Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 14 2009,19:20)|
|Because God can not be considered, (no matter how mind-boggling the organization), they always end up at the "I don't know" roadblock. This is a big problem - one that you are all well prepared to ignore. It's a nice little insulated world!|
"We don't know" delineates the leading edge of scientific knowledge, which is where the most talented scientists want to be and want to work. So, indeed the best science is "always" working at that boundary. That is its strength, not an indication of failure. Perhaps your representation that things are otherwise is your most persistent distortion.
All I'm asking for is one workable natural pathway for one organized biological system. That's it. Just one. As far as I know, (and as far as anyone here has been able to point me), none exist. They all end in "I don't know". Yet I'm accused of distorting scientific findings for merely asking the question!
|It is also the point at which God is most often inserted by the most naive of her advocates (including you).|
So God is inserted at the beginning of virtually every living system? Sounds about right to me. But I'm more naive than you.
|Yet the fact remains that the God hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in the hard work of moving down that open road, and moving the leading edge forward.|
Indeed, within your own framework the God hypothesis is of no help whatsoever in determining its own truth value. You have stated many times that the only empirical test you can conceive prescribes nothing more than the further pursuit of scientific research within the framework of methodological naturalism.
That's the only way to research it scientifically. There are other (subjective) modes of research that can also verify the "God hypothesis" for us individually.
|If you feel I'm "misrepresenting" the findings of science, please give specific examples as to how. Show me where I "deny and dismiss many scientific assertions that are in fact well in hand and beyond reasonable dispute".|
An obvious example is your "agnosticism" regarding the age of the earth. You said, "I have not made my mind up in regard to the age of the earth/cosmos as I have not seen all the evidence and probably do not have the expertise to rightly interpret it." In the context of this discussion such a statement inescapably leaves the door open for YEC. Yet the age of the earth is settled science, and beyond rational dispute. Yours is not an open-minded statement; it's an empty-minded one.
Similarly, you've stated "I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it." Yet the fictional status of "the flood" (which in this context inescapably denotes the worldwide Genesis flood) is also beyond rational dispute.
You've got to be kidding me! You blatantly accuse me of purposefully misrepresenting the findings of science, then, when pressed for an example, you cite the subject I've probably talked about the least; one I never brought up; and one for which I specifically said I'd done little to no research!!!
I expected better that that from you Bill.
|More impressionistic is your claim about the majority of scientists themselves:|
|I like scientists who are laughed at and shunned by the majority. The majority are usually just empty headed sheep anyway. The majority just loves pablum. Always has, always will.|
Which aroused a first reaction of "fuck you, ignoranus" when you posted it. You don't know enough shit from shinola to "make up your mind" to accept settled science like that specifying the age of the earth, yet feel qualified to dismiss the majority of working scientists as "empty headed sheep."
I admit that that was very poorly worded. I was not attempting to call the majority of scientists "empty headed sheep", I was referring to majorities in general, more as in "the masses". The majority chose VHS over beta, PCs over Macs, etc.
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright
"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins