@fmf saidNeither, jackass. We're not talking about supernatural things. The creation of the universe was not supernatural, and so no speculation is needed. Observation is what is needed, not speculation. Speculation in no way drives cosmology.
You have missed the point. We can but speculate about supernatural things. KellyJay sees natural things and then makes what he thinks are objective claims about supernatural things. To claim that I am "arguing KJ's side" reveals that you either haven't really been following what is being said or you haven't understood it.
By adding speculation vis a vis a "supernatural" entity is making KJ's argument for him.
336d
@suzianne saidSo if you don’t accept the Bible then I’ll ask you for the fifth time…
Of course not. Not without an update.
How have you formulated what you do and don’t believe Suzianne?
336d
@suzianne saidCreation is a singular event, there is nothing to compare it to. When people look at evolution and attempt to say that it is an explanation voiding the need for creation it is an apples and orange comparison as creation is a singular event everything out of nothing physical. In contrast, evolution is an ongoing process that cannot explain its beginning or how mindlessness could pull off such complex work as we can now read much of the genetic code that identifies what is happening. The natural world's beginning didn't start naturally, there was no nature to do it.
Neither, jackass. We're not talking about supernatural things. The creation of the universe was not supernatural, and so no speculation is needed. Observation is what is needed, not speculation. Speculation in no way drives cosmology.
By adding speculation vis a vis a "supernatural" entity is making KJ's argument for him.
336d
@kellyjay saidOkay, one for the road; you misunderstand my last post. Please try to work on your comprehension, like who is saying what about what, that's twice recently that you've got it completely wrong, and posted incorrectly as a consequence. I think we are both completely consistent, you, for example, are consistent in avoiding questions about your beliefs, but that has already been established. Anyway I'm gone for a while, see you sometime.
I have never said I don’t care what you say or think unlike you. You are doing what now, talking out both sides of your face? Engage or dry up, be consistent for crying out loud!
336d
@indonesia-phil saidWhy do you have anything to say to someone you don’t care what they think, be consistent either say you are going to engage or go away.
Okay, one for the road; you misunderstand my last post. Please try to work on your comprehension, like who is saying what about what, that's twice recently that you've got it completely wrong, and posted incorrectly as a consequence. I think we are both completely consistent, you, for example, are consistent in avoiding questions about your beliefs, but that has already been established. Anyway I'm gone for a while, see you sometime.
336d
@bigdogg saidHave you ever written instructions for a complicated task requiring numerous things to all go exactly right at the right time? If you have than did you pour over the results to see if your instructions were followed correctly?
This is just a bad argument on your part.
The fact that humans design artificial devices to use in living bodies does not prove that the living bodies themselves are designed.
So you are confident without any directions, or goals, life just came together and crawled out from under a rock and started evolving?
336d
@kellyjay saidScience is supported in a way by all you listed because everyone uses it and it plays a part in their world view to some extent. Pure science requires none of categories you listed but on information that can be proven to be valid to increase mankinds physical world view. It isn't a religion, though many are taking theory as truth and teaching it as such with blind faith. George Coyne was the head of the vatican observatory and believed God created man by evolution. He said it would take several generations of stars to get the chemistry of life. He got his dick spanked by the Catholic church when he said he did not believe in miracles. I only mention this because there are too many variables and beliefs to encapsulate science from religion. Science attempts to describe our world keeping the facts straight according to a set of rules. With any luck and a lot of hard work man can get useful technologies out of it. There are quotes from Oppenheimer that shows the negative side effects of these technologies as well. If one follows science even a little bit he should be impressed at the hard work and how amazing our world is to the theists and atheists alike. I had a conversation with someone at work and mentioned the expansion of the universe as getting bigger more quickly as time goes based on the Dopler effect. He replied and said "yeah, that's called God!" I said something like Roger that and the conversation was over. He had a fairly closed mind but scientific observations like this do not disprove a God. Christian fundamentalists are not the only ones that believe in a god but get a bet touchy when observations do not match their good book.
A. Atheism
B. Theism
C. Poloytheism
D. None of the above science doesn't need/require any of them?
336d
@suzianne saidWe're not talking about supernatural things.
Neither, jackass. We're not talking about supernatural things. The creation of the universe was not supernatural, and so no speculation is needed. Observation is what is needed, not speculation. Speculation in no way drives cosmology.
By adding speculation vis a vis a "supernatural" entity is making KJ's argument for him.
KellyJay is. He is speculating about the supernatural origin of the universe and he thinks his speculation generates objective facts.
336d
@joe-beyser saidCan you point out some examples where science and scripture are at odds? I believe all truth belongs to God and if something is true it will not be in conflict with another truth, if there is a conflict then our understanding is flawed not the truth.
Science is supported in a way by all you listed because everyone uses it and it plays a part in their world view to some extent. Pure science requires none of categories you listed but on information that can be proven to be valid to increase mankinds physical world view. It isn't a religion, though many are taking theory as truth and teaching it as such with blind faith. ...[text shortened]... only ones that believe in a god but get a bet touchy when observations do not match their good book.
I agree that any belief system can produce top of the line minds in science. But the problems with some beliefs are that they undermine why we can do science.
336d
@pettytalk saidNope. It's the sound of something going over Suzianne's head. It's as if she has never read any of KellyJay's posts these past 10-15 years.
Sounds like wind blowing.
335d
@pettytalk saidIt does explain this. Monkeys and apes do evolve. Just so slowly that we hardly notice it. There is, for example, a species of monkey which has a repertoire of calls for various dangers: one call for "eagle", upon which the monkeys all hide in the tall grass. Another call for "snake" whereupon the monkeys climb trees. These calls have been recorded and played to others of the same species in other regions; they all respond the same. However, there is one region where the monkeys are subjected to another predator, and they have evolved a third call, "Man with dog." When this call is recorded and played to others of the same species in other regions, they do not respond. They will be hunted to extinction and only those who respond will survive. That's evolution in action.
All this evolution nonsense does not explain why we still have so many monkeys and apes who have not evolved along with us ex apes, and ex monkeys. Evolution is flawed.....an accident ready to happen. All it take is one fluke, and we all go bananas.
335d
@moonbus saidQuite a story.
It does explain this. Monkeys and apes do evolve. Just so slowly that we hardly notice it. There is, for example, a species of monkey which has a repertoire of calls for various dangers: one call for "eagle", upon which the monkeys all hide in the tall grass. Another call for "snake" whereupon the monkeys climb trees. These calls have been recorded and played to others of the ...[text shortened]... ey will be hunted to extinction and only those who respond will survive. That's evolution in action.