Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Philosophy of science

Expand Messages
  • nine.arrows
    sci·ence –noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
    Message 1 of 17 , Jun 1, 2008
      sci·ence
      –noun
      1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or
      truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general
      laws: the mathematical sciences.
      2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained
      through observation and experimentation.
      3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
      4. systematized knowledge in general.
      5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by
      systematic study.
      6. a particular branch of knowledge.
      7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or
      principles; proficiency.


      We can see by these definitions (from dictionary.com) that there are
      several problems. In definition #1, we can see that there is a
      conflict of beliefs between the non-Christian and the Christian. The
      Bible is the Christian's foundational "body of facts or truths," yet
      it is fictional according to non-Christians. This is also the
      foundation of the division between evolution/creation beliefs.
      Probably most folks who say that creation science is not science
      believe that the Bible is the word of man and is full of mistakes and
      fanciful stories.

      In definition #2, we can see that this concept limits "science" only
      to the observable world. By definition, that excludes the spirit,
      soul, heaven, hell, etc., and God. While we can experience these
      things spiritually, we can not touch or measure or compute them (yet),
      and therefore, they are out of the realm of this definition of
      "science." However, just because these are excluded from the
      definition does not in any way mean that they do not exist. There is
      that intentional intimidating pressure that leaks out from this
      definition---that says, "If you dare to believe in anything outside of
      "science' (definition #2), you are a fool, because there is nothing
      else outside of our natural, observable, testable world." This is an
      unscientific view, actually, because it is so closed-minded.

      Now, if we look at definition #4, we could say that creation science
      and secular science could both be covered under it. For creation
      science, we acknowledge that we have spirits and souls and we
      acknowledge the natural world around us as well. We can incorporate
      all of our senses :) and all of our knowledge of these things and
      compile them systematically and use them scientifically to draw
      conclusions. In a similar way, secularists can use their knowledge
      systematically to draw conclusions, and call that "science" by this
      definition.

      Other comments?

      ---Beata
    • steelville
      ... .... Mine too, for the record. Several studies of prayer, for example, using double-blind procedures, showed marked positive correlation between healings
      Message 2 of 17 , Jun 2, 2008
        > 3. The supernatural can be scientifically studied, detected and described.
        >
        > This is the broadest view of science. Adherents of this view see the
        > supernatural consisting of real comprehendible processes, that can be
        > studied, modeled. Most importantly like naturalistic explanations such
        > models can be tested. This totally disarms the arguments for excluding
        > supernatural explanations in scientific research. For the record this
        > is my view.
        ....
        Mine too, for the record.

        Several studies of prayer, for example, using double-blind procedures,
        showed marked positive correlation between healings and "intercessory
        prayer".

        That said, studies to corroborate the Jeremiah 2:27 myth are "science",
        then surely enough studies that look for observations and patterns that
        detract from it are also "science".

        Sometimes they lamely try to mouth something like "alternatives to
        Darwinism", but the basic, fundamental, essence of darwinism is that all
        extant species and forms descended from rocks by way of the goo.

        --Alan
      • Stephen Jackson
        ... This is my view. The distinction between the natural and the supernatural is as artificial as the distinction between ancient history and modern history.
        Message 3 of 17 , Jun 2, 2008
          At 10:06 PM 6/2/2008, you wrote:

          > > 3. The supernatural can be scientifically studied, detected and described.

          This is my view. The distinction between the natural and the
          supernatural is as artificial as the distinction between ancient
          history and modern history. What is supernatural?

          Is it that which is not detectable to our unaided senses? If so,
          then radio frequency EM radiation, neutrinos and x-rays would be supernatural.

          Is it that which is not known to us? Then, in 300 B.C. the planet
          Neptune, the element Uranium and the features on the far side of the
          moon were supernatural because they were unknown.

          Is it that which does not appear to follow any of the patterns that
          we know, the so-called "laws of nature?" Then prior to Newton,
          gravity was supernatural, because the mathematical law which gravity
          follows was unknown.

          Is it that which does not appear to follow any pattern at all? Then
          the decay of a single atomic nucleus and the sequence of prime
          numbers are supernatural because, as far as is now known, they have
          no pattern. Furthermore, I am supernatural because no one can say,
          with certainty, whether I will choose cereal or eggs for breakfast tomorrow.

          Is it that which accomplishes things that we cannot? Then
          television, computer chips and heart surgery were supernatural before
          we knew how to accomplish them,

          The supernatural is always "just over the horizon." But when we get
          there, we find only the comprehensible, the logical and the
          rational. We then expand the boundaries of the "natural" to include
          the new ground. So, the "supernatural" would include only that which
          is forever beyond any type of comprehension by any mind (i.e. madness
          and chaos and magic). Nothing real fits that description, because
          God is not the author of confusion. Supernatural is a synonym for
          unreal. In this sense, the atheists are right to deny the existence
          of the supernatural, because the unreal, by definition, does not
          exist. Despite the divisions that man imagines, there is one
          reality, it is God's creation and it all makes perfect sense. God is
          a perfect, infinite mind and he is incapable of nonsense, madness or
          chaos. I don't know how God caused the sea to part or Christ to rise
          from the dead. But if I were to ask him how he did these things, he
          could give me a definite, logical, comprehensible answer. The answer
          may be too complex for my mind to hold, but that would just indicate
          that, in comparison to God, I am a dimwit.

          Stephen
        • Charles Creager Jr
          ... From: steelville To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:06 PM Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Philosophy of science ... One way one
          Message 4 of 17 , Jun 3, 2008
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: steelville
            To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:06 PM
            Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Philosophy of science

            >> 3. The supernatural can be scientifically studied, detected and
            >> described.
            >>
            >> This is the broadest view of science. Adherents of this view see
            >> the supernatural consisting of real comprehendible processes,
            >> that can be studied, modeled. Most importantly like naturalistic
            >> explanations such models can be tested. This totally disarms the
            >> arguments for excluding supernatural explanations in scientific
            >> research. For the record this is my view.
            ....
            > Mine too, for the record.
            >
            > Several studies of prayer, for example, using double-blind
            > procedures, showed marked positive correlation between healings
            > and "intercessory prayer".

            One way one could be expanded this to test diferent supernatural hypothosis would be comparing the results with say spitual christains to cardnal christains and non - christain.

            > That said, studies to corroborate the Jeremiah 2:27 myth are
            > "science", then surely enough studies that look for observations and
            > patterns that detract from it are also "science".
            >
            > Sometimes they lamely try to mouth something like "alternatives to
            > Darwinism", but the basic, fundamental, essence of darwinism is that
            > all extant species and forms descended from rocks by way of the goo.

            One thing that most people don't relize is that Big Bang to man Evolution starts with the assumption of absolute naturalism. With supernatural explinations elimnated from consideration from the start they are forced to assume that impossible events occured spontaiously. The entier Evolutionary model requiers the 1st position I mentioned, that is why the Philosophy of science battle is so important.

            ---- Charles Creager Jr.




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • stephen hiscock
            Hey Stephen - Excellent Post!!!! - My thoughts exactly - you kind of stole my thunder.....I ve always believed that way! perhaps it has something to do with
            Message 5 of 17 , Jun 3, 2008
              Hey Stephen - Excellent Post!!!! - My thoughts exactly - you kind of stole my thunder.....I've always believed that way!
              perhaps it has something to do with the supernatural! ;-)
              It think we should start a compilation of Catagories that people try to assign to the supernatural  - I guess telepathy is probably still one that we don't have "rational explanations" for -
              But we can assign catagories like you did and place known rational explanations under them eg neptune - unknown; things we can't do - computers; etc - then could use this as counter arguments when evolutionists attempt to invoke the supernatural as a reaon against what we beleive.
              Just adding something additional to what you said about rational explanations for raising people from the dead and heart surgery.
              Today we can do that! relatively easily - to a degree - ask a heart transplant surgeon how he does that - then ask a 5 year old or a new guinea native if he understands! - so for some its "supernatural" and others simply rational science applied to a situation.
              We also know for a fact that many cells in the body are capable of life for a long time - after the socalled point of death. - so in a sense God is right to refer to all the dead as simply sleeping in the dust! - because for him all he has to do in a sense is wake us up - just like a surgeon after having removed someones heart or lungs can do the same - but techincally the patient was DEAD - because they were not breathing nor was their heart beating!m - and this is many peoples definition of death - or at least is used to be - yet they "came back to life" -  of course now we have brain scans to determine the point of death - and perhaps in the future when many so called "brain dead" people will be raised to life again - ie long term comma patients on ventilation machines have done so - then we will have another "rational" and non - supernatural explanation of how it happens....
              Another "supernatural" occurance could be natural areas of the earth that are high in radioactivity or odourless tasteless colourless poisons - eg arsenic or radon in peoples basements
              many of these places where considered "cursed" etc - yet today.
              So thats a new catagory to use - "curses" - which can include "generational curses" aswell - eg people teaching their children bad habits (ie diet, lifestyle, behaviours all leading to unhealthy lives) - perfectly rational.
              I hope we can compile a Huge list - it would be very effective preaching material.

              Stephen


              ----- Original Message ----
              From: Stephen Jackson <stephenwj@...>
              To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Tuesday, 3 June, 2008 3:40:54 PM
              Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Philosophy of science


              At 10:06 PM 6/2/2008, you wrote:

              > > 3. The supernatural can be scientifically studied, detected and described.

              This is my view. The distinction between the natural and the
              supernatural is as artificial as the distinction between ancient
              history and modern history. What is supernatural?

              Is it that which is not detectable to our unaided senses? If so,
              then radio frequency EM radiation, neutrinos and x-rays would be supernatural.

              Is it that which is not known to us? Then, in 300 B.C. the planet
              Neptune, the element Uranium and the features on the far side of the
              moon were supernatural because they were unknown.

              Is it that which does not appear to follow any of the patterns that
              we know, the so-called "laws of nature?" Then prior to Newton,
              gravity was supernatural, because the mathematical law which gravity
              follows was unknown.

              Is it that which does not appear to follow any pattern at all? Then
              the decay of a single atomic nucleus and the sequence of prime
              numbers are supernatural because, as far as is now known, they have
              no pattern. Furthermore, I am supernatural because no one can say,
              with certainty, whether I will choose cereal or eggs for breakfast tomorrow.

              Is it that which accomplishes things that we cannot? Then
              television, computer chips and heart surgery were supernatural before
              we knew how to accomplish them,

              The supernatural is always "just over the horizon." But when we get
              there, we find only the comprehensible, the logical and the
              rational. We then expand the boundaries of the "natural" to include
              the new ground. So, the "supernatural" would include only that which
              is forever beyond any type of comprehension by any mind (i.e. madness
              and chaos and magic). Nothing real fits that description, because
              God is not the author of confusion. Supernatural is a synonym for
              unreal. In this sense, the atheists are right to deny the existence
              of the supernatural, because the unreal, by definition, does not
              exist. Despite the divisions that man imagines, there is one
              reality, it is God's creation and it all makes perfect sense. God is
              a perfect, infinite mind and he is incapable of nonsense, madness or
              chaos. I don't know how God caused the sea to part or Christ to rise
              from the dead. But if I were to ask him how he did these things, he
              could give me a definite, logical, comprehensible answer. The answer
              may be too complex for my mind to hold, but that would just indicate
              that, in comparison to God, I am a dimwit.

              Stephen



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Charles Creager Jr
              _____ From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stephen Jackson Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:41 PM To:
              Message 6 of 17 , Jun 3, 2008
                _____

                From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                Behalf Of Stephen Jackson
                Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:41 PM
                To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: Re: [CreationTalk] Philosophy of science



                At 10:06 PM 6/2/2008, you wrote:

                >> 3. The supernatural can be scientifically studied, detected
                >> and described.

                > This is my view. The distinction between the natural and the
                > supernatural is as artificial as the distinction between ancient
                > history and modern history.

                How true the distinction is artificial. The Bible does not even use the term
                supernatural.

                > What is supernatural?
                <Snip>

                That is pat of the problem. They insist on leaving out the supernatural but
                they never define it.


                > The supernatural is always "just over the horizon." But when we

                > get there, we find only the comprehensible, the logical and the
                > rational. We then expand the boundaries of the "natural" to

                > include the new ground. So, the "supernatural" would include
                > only that which is forever beyond any type of comprehension
                > by any mind (i.e. madness and chaos and magic). Nothing real
                > fits that description, because God is not the author of confusion.
                > Supernatural is a synonym for unreal. In this sense, the atheists
                > are right to deny the existence of the supernatural, because the
                > unreal, by definition, does not exist. Despite the divisions that
                > man imagines, there is one reality, it is God's creation and it all
                > makes perfect sense. God is a perfect, infinite mind and he is
                > incapable of nonsense, madness or chaos. I don't know how God
                > caused the sea to part or Christ to rise from the dead. But if I
                > were to ask him how he did these things, he could give me a
                > definite, logical, comprehensible answer. The answer may be
                > too complex for my mind to hold, but that would just indicate
                > that, in comparison to God, I am a dimwit.

                Like the word "planet", "supernatural" is a pre-scientific term and as such
                lacks a scientific definition. Recently the word "planet", received a
                scientific definition., but "supernatural" has not. I think this a result of
                the desire to eliminate from scientific consideration anything even remotely
                having to do with God. However there is no way to define supernatural that
                does not included things they want under science but includes God unless you
                define specifically to includes God, but excludes the others. Such an action
                would show a deliberate effort to exclude. Also by keeping the definition
                vague, there is no way their definition can be used against them.



                It seem like the best response to claim that science can not contemplate
                supernatural explanations, is to demand a definition of "supernatural."



                ----- Charles Creager Jr.



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • steelville
                ... ... Actually, that s probably a better example of my view. I once saw a description of miracles by a self-described priest on one list, ironically a
                Message 7 of 17 , Jun 4, 2008
                  > This is my view. The distinction between the natural and the
                  > supernatural is as artificial as the distinction between ancient
                  > history and modern history. What is supernatural?
                  ...
                  Actually, that's probably a better example of my view.

                  I once saw a description of "miracles" by a self-described "priest" on
                  one list, ironically a vehement fire-breathing creationism-hating guy
                  who rained fire and brimstone and cries of heretic on creationists, and
                  his description of "miracles" was interesting. As in an incident
                  involving a demonstrated, corroborated, exception to all possible
                  natural explanations.

                  But then "naturalism" is a de-facto reference (in common English usage
                  nowadays) to a philosophy that excludes God from consideration.

                  I usually talk about "reality" or studies of "reality", or "the real
                  universe", as a phrase to mean all the things that form part of our
                  environment, whether generally considered spiritual, physical, natural,
                  supernatural, and so on.

                  Things of God that matter are very much confirmable. God asks us in
                  Scripture to try him, to prove him "now herewith". Paul said "many
                  infallible proofs", and that the resurrected Jesus Christ appeared to
                  "five hundred", and many, many more.

                  > > Several studies of prayer, for example, using double-blind
                  > > procedures, showed marked positive correlation between healings
                  > > and "intercessory prayer".
                  >
                  > One way one could be expanded this to test diferent supernatural
                  > hypothosis would be comparing the results with say spiritual
                  > christains to cardnal christains and non - christain.
                  ...
                  Well, in the one lonely study that is also the only one I've seen get
                  any press at all, where supposedly the results were "inconclusive", I've
                  said that to really test it you have to get people who really believe,
                  truly believe, that intercessory prayer actually works, preferably those
                  who've had some experience with it.

                  I would guess that some studies times past, like the plant study I
                  mentioned before, got people who might not have been so.

                  It takes somebody, for example, who not only "believes" Mark 11:23, but
                  has the faith to see it done: "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever
                  shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the
                  sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those
                  things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he
                  saith." (Mark 11:23)

                  Of course that contradicts the doctrines of even a lot of churches,
                  including some of the most ardent defenders of the faith today against
                  the onslaughts of corrupt doctrines creeping into "evangelical"
                  territory, and of many old-line mainstream religions too.

                  Even Jesus couldn't do many miracles in the area where he was raised, "A
                  prophet is not without honor save in his own country".

                  --Alan
                • nine.arrows
                  There is a problem when we think that we will eventually, given enough time, be able to explain everything God has done and every way that He makes things
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jun 5, 2008
                    There is a problem when we think that we will eventually, given enough
                    time, be able to explain everything God has done and every way that He
                    makes things tick. I think we will be told of those things when we
                    are in heaven, but while we are on earth, there will always be a gap
                    in our comprehension and capabilitiy. It is God's pleasure to give us
                    challenges to search out His created world.

                    There is a problem when we try to erase the "distinction" between the
                    supernatural and the natural. (Definition #1 is not complete without
                    #2). The problem with naturalism, including of course the Big Bang
                    and Evolution, is that it says everything is explainable by the laws
                    of nature. It excludes the existence of God (definition #2 of
                    supernatural), and that is because by this definition, His existence
                    is unnecessary. If we think that we will be able to explain all
                    things and accomplish all things eventually, we will think that we are
                    as good as God, or that God is not part of all of this. We will
                    become naturalists. I submit that there IS and should be a
                    distinction between the natural and the supernatural. There is a
                    force, attributable only to God and to whomever He designates to use
                    some of it, that is not natural, and was not even designed to be. It
                    is exclusive to God only and to those whom He chooses. For example,
                    there are many miracles in the Bible which have absolutely no natural
                    explanations, and they never will have. They were meant to be
                    supernatural acts of God. Therefore, I think it is best that we do
                    hold to the definitions suggested below, with the exclusion of #1 and
                    #3, because that is where the confusion and problems come from. Those
                    definitions are incomplete. We should make this distinction between
                    the natural and the supernatural. There is a limit to nature and the
                    laws of nature. God is not bound by them.



                    su·per·nat·u·ral (from Dictionary.com)
                    1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural;
                    unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
                    2. of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
                    3. of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural
                    speed.
                    4. of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other
                    unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
                    –noun
                    5. a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as
                    supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or
                    outside the natural order.
                    6. behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
                    7. direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
                    8. the supernatural,
                    a. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
                    b. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep
                    fear of the supernatural.



                    --Beata
                  • Charles Creager Jr
                    ... When you think about it, how can you call God supernatural? After all Biblicaly He is what is truely natural, and we and our universe are all artifical
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jun 5, 2008
                      >> This is my view. The distinction between the natural and the
                      >> supernatural is as artificial as the distinction between ancient
                      >> history and modern history. What is supernatural?
                      ...
                      > Actually, that's probably a better example of my view.

                      When you think about it, how can you call God supernatural? After all Biblicaly He is what is truely natural, and we and our universe are all artifical constructs of his making.

                      Not only that but spiritual being must be composed of something. That is that for spiritual being to exist there must be some sort of spiritual substance that makes them up. Like matter it likely that this substance can exist in both living and no living forms.

                      Furthermore it is reasonable to supose that at its fundamental level the substance of our universe is composed of the same stuff.

                      ---- Charles Creager Jr.



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Charles Creager Jr
                      From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of nine.arrows Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:29 AM To:
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jun 6, 2008
                        From: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
                        Behalf Of nine.arrows
                        Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:29 AM
                        To: CreationTalk@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [CreationTalk] Re: Philosophy of science



                        > There is a problem when we think that we will eventually,
                        > given enough time, be able to explain everything God has
                        > done and every way that He makes things tick. I think we
                        > will be told of those things when we are in heaven, but> while we are on
                        earth, there will always be a gap
                        in our comprehension and capabilitiy. It is God's pleasure to give us
                        challenges to search out His created world.





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Charles Creager Jr
                        From: nine.arrows ... I think any one is saying that we will ever be able to explain everything God has do, or even close. However that does mean that we can
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jun 6, 2008
                          From: nine.arrows



                          > There is a problem when we think that we will eventually,
                          > given enough time, be able to explain everything God has
                          > done and every way that He makes things tick. I think we
                          > will be told of those things when we are in heaven, but
                          > while we are on earth, there will always be a gap in our
                          > comprehension and capabilitiy. It is God's pleasure to give
                          > us challenges to search out His created world.



                          I think any one is saying that we will ever be able to explain everything
                          God has do, or even close. However that does mean that we can not understand
                          any of it



                          ------ Charles Creager Jr.



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • steelville
                          ... ... You hit on it, Charles! And watch them go into a tizzy! In one debate, it was was something to see them try to wiggle out of their own SETI trap. As
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jun 6, 2008
                            > It seem like the best response to claim that science can not contemplate
                            > supernatural explanations, is to demand a definition of "supernatural.
                            ...
                            You hit on it, Charles!

                            And watch them go into a tizzy!

                            In one debate, it was was something to see them try to wiggle out of
                            their own SETI trap. As in, they study patterns that occur in a
                            naturally occuring medium (incoming radio) for effects from intelligent
                            agents. But they say it's not science to do the same thing in the media
                            one finds in biology or cosmology.

                            ----Alan
                          • Charles Creager Jr
                            From: nine.arrows ... I don t think any one is saying that we will ever be able to explain everything God has do, or even close. However that does mean that we
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jun 8, 2008
                              From: nine.arrows

                              > There is a problem when we think that we will eventually,
                              > given enough time, be able to explain everything God has
                              > done and every way that He makes things tick. I think we
                              > will be told of those things when we are in heaven, but
                              > while we are on earth, there will always be a gap in our
                              > comprehension and capabilitiy. It is God's pleasure to give
                              > us challenges to search out His created world.

                              I don't think any one is saying that we will ever be able to explain
                              everything
                              God has do, or even close. However that does mean that we can not understand
                              any of it

                              ------ Charles Creager Jr.
                              ------ Correction



                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • WDOUGWILDER@wmconnect.com
                              In a message dated 6/5/2008 4:43:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, ... I think this is why we can call him supernatural --that is Transendent, God is beyond nature
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jun 9, 2008
                                In a message dated 6/5/2008 4:43:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                                cpcjr@... writes:


                                > When you think about it, how can you call God supernatural? After all
                                > Biblicaly He is what is truely natural, and we and our universe are all artifical
                                > constructs of his making.
                                >
                                >

                                I think this is why we can call him supernatural --that is Transendent, God
                                is beyond nature because he created it, all of it time -space and everything.
                                God is not located in any of it although he is everywhere because he is
                                beyond it, nor does he function according to laws which he did not make himself he
                                is the ultimate freewill uncreated not bound by anything except his own self
                                chosen nature. </HTML>


                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Charles Creager Jr
                                From: steelville ... Most Evolutionists have probably never thought about it, and those that have probably want to keep it vague. ... And by the way the signs
                                Message 15 of 17 , Jun 9, 2008
                                  From: steelville



                                  >> It seem like the best response to claim that science can not contemplate
                                  >> supernatural explanations, is to demand a definition of "supernatural.
                                  > ...
                                  > You hit on it, Charles!
                                  >
                                  > And watch them go into a tizzy!



                                  Most Evolutionists have probably never thought about it, and those that have
                                  probably want to keep it vague.


                                  > In one debate, it was was something to see them try to wiggle out of
                                  > their own SETI trap. As in, they study patterns that occur in a
                                  > naturally occuring medium (incoming radio) for effects from intelligent
                                  > agents. But they say it's not science to do the same thing in the media
                                  > one finds in biology or cosmology.

                                  And by the way the signs of intelligents SETI looks for are far simpler and
                                  more likely to result from natural processes than much of what one finds in
                                  biology and cosmology.

                                  For example look at this computer animation video of the inner workings of a
                                  cell.



                                  http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu/

                                  http://www.studiodaily.com/main/technique/tprojects/6850.html



                                  This is a talk containing the above video that explains what's going on.



                                  http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/147



                                  Now if SETI found a string of prime numbers coming form another star they
                                  would claim that as proof of ET, but yet they will insist that the
                                  incredible organized complexity of living cell was not the product of
                                  intelligents. I don't know what's more amazing, the incredible organized
                                  complexity of a living cell or the fact that other wise intelligent human
                                  beings can think that it all spontaneously arouse by unintelligent
                                  undirected natural processes. If such fallacious ideas were not condemning
                                  millions to hell they would be laughable.



                                  ----- Charles Creager Jr.



                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Charles Creager Jr
                                  You missed my point. I was looking at it from the point of view of reality as a whole, and not just our relatively small space time continuum. My question was
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Jun 10, 2008
                                    You missed my point. I was looking at it from the point of view of reality
                                    as a whole, and not just our relatively small space time continuum. My
                                    question was purely philosophical and rhetorical it was intended to be
                                    answered. I know full well why God is considered supernatural. What I was
                                    saying by it was that in reality only God exists on his own and every thing
                                    was made by God. So in reality God is natural and we and our universe are
                                    artificial



                                    --- Charles Creager Jr.





                                    _____

                                    From: WDOUGWILDER@...


                                    >> When you think about it, how can you call God supernatural? After all
                                    >> Biblicaly He is what is truely natural, and we and our universe are all
                                    artifical
                                    >> constructs of his making.
                                    >>
                                    > I think this is why we can call him supernatural --that is Transendent,
                                    God
                                    > is beyond nature because he created it, all of it time -space and
                                    everything.
                                    > God is not located in any of it although he is everywhere because he is
                                    > beyond it, nor does he function according to laws which he did not make
                                    > himself he is the ultimate freewill uncreated not bound by anything except
                                    > his own self chosen nature.





                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.