|
Post by Ed on Mar 17, 2020 9:43:15 GMT -5
From an engineers viewpoint:
"Darwinism always was a storytelling. What is worse, these Darwinian stories and fairy tales are “absurd in the highest possible degree” (like Darwin would say), especially in 21st century.
These guys (biologists – natural science graduates) claiming, in 21st century, without a shame, that high advanced, autonomous, self-navigating flying systems self-designed, and no engineer was needed.
Biologists claiming that in 21st century!!!! So how absurd it sounds? It is crazy… lets close all technical universities around the world, and lets send engineering students to biology classes…
There they will learn, how to design sophisticated autonomous, self-navigating flying systems of various kinds (e.g. huge ones , microscopic one…) Remember, to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system of a size of a fruit fly is an engineering SCI-FI even in 21st century.
What is even worse and even more absurd, these biologists claim, that this miracle (designing autonomous flying system without an engineer) — happened multiple times REPEATEDLY AND INDEPENDENTLY in various evolutionary not related lineages (flying dinosaurs, birds, insects, mammals…)
So how absurd does the Darwin’s theory sound in 21st century ? Absurd absurd absurd fairy tales and just-so-stories for people who don’t use the head."
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 17, 2020 9:51:45 GMT -5
From uncommondescent.com/ "No better advertisements for intelligent design exist than works written by establishment scientists that unintentionally make design arguments. I can think of few better examples than well-known cosmologist Paul Davies’s recently published book The Demon in the Machine: How Hidden Webs of Information Are Solving the Mystery of Life (2019). With a nod toward James Clerk Maxwell’s entropy-defying demon, Davies argues that the gulf between physics and biology is completely unbridgeable without some fundamentally new concept. Since living organisms consistently resist the ravages of entropy that all forms of inanimate matter are subject to, there must be some non-physical principle allowing living matter to consistently defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics. And for Davies there is; the demon in the machine turns out to be information." -Robert Shedinger, “Hey, Paul Davies — Your ID Is Showing” at Evolution News and Science Today "That organisms evolved over enormous spans of time I have little doubt. But the Darwinian mechanism driving this evolution — natural selection acting on randomly produced variation in populations of organisms — I no longer accept. I do not think the evolutionary process can be understood without appeal to some kind of intelligent agency. My Darwinian skepticism is now detailed in my book The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms: Darwinian Biology’s Grand Narrative of Triumph and the Subversion of Religion (Cascade, 2019) for those interested in my reasons. One thing that caught my attention as I read the scientific literature of evolutionary theory was the frequency with which “religious” terms appeared – terms like orthodoxy, heresy, dogma, creed, doctrine, and even blasphemy. Such terms seemed out of place in scientific discourse. So, their appearance in peer-reviewed scientific literature alerted me to the fact that something more was going on than simply scientific discussion. These words were signs of an ideological debate embedded in this ostensibly scientific literature." -Robert Shedinger, “Evolution and mystery: Confessions of a Darwinian skeptic” at Lutheran Alliance for Faith, Science and Technology Interesting comment: "So yours truly is a member of no established religion. Mainly out of opposition to doctrinaire thinking. Being opposed to all systems of doctrine, well guess what, that puts me in direct opposition to the Darwinian doctrine, as it is maintained at all costs of logic. Now one particular doctrine I seem to have formulated as an exception and it is not really very original, and that is that every person has some form of religious thinking that operates on a day to day basis. In other words you don’t jettison a religion without taking on another one, which is how postmodern atheistic progressivism becomes almost impossible to dislodge in individuals by rational discussion. And as this religion has its Father figurehead, and creation story, it certainly sheds its particular unique light on the history of life and certainly casts it in specific religious terms of its making." This comment explains alot. Darwinism was never about science, it was about scientism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2020 10:17:38 GMT -5
From an engineers viewpoint: "Darwinism always was a storytelling. What is worse, these Darwinian stories and fairy tales are “absurd in the highest possible degree” (like Darwin would say), especially in 21st century. These guys (biologists – natural science graduates) claiming, in 21st century, without a shame, that high advanced, autonomous, self-navigating flying systems self-designed, and no engineer was needed. Biologists claiming that in 21st century!!!! So how absurd it sounds? It is crazy… lets close all technical universities around the world, and lets send engineering students to biology classes… There they will learn, how to design sophisticated autonomous, self-navigating flying systems of various kinds (e.g. huge ones , microscopic one…) Remember, to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system of a size of a fruit fly is an engineering SCI-FI even in 21st century. What is even worse and even more absurd, these biologists claim, that this miracle (designing autonomous flying system without an engineer) — happened multiple times REPEATEDLY AND INDEPENDENTLY in various evolutionary not related lineages (flying dinosaurs, birds, insects, mammals…) So how absurd does the Darwin’s theory sound in 21st century ? Absurd absurd absurd fairy tales and just-so-stories for people who don’t use the head." Can you explain to us from an engineer’s viewpoint how the good Lord Jesus ascended up to ‘heaven’ from a standing start and without the use of any propellant at least a thousand years before the rocket was invented? Matt10
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 17, 2020 11:12:39 GMT -5
From an engineers viewpoint: "Darwinism always was a storytelling. What is worse, these Darwinian stories and fairy tales are “absurd in the highest possible degree” (like Darwin would say), especially in 21st century. These guys (biologists – natural science graduates) claiming, in 21st century, without a shame, that high advanced, autonomous, self-navigating flying systems self-designed, and no engineer was needed. Biologists claiming that in 21st century!!!! So how absurd it sounds? It is crazy… lets close all technical universities around the world, and lets send engineering students to biology classes… There they will learn, how to design sophisticated autonomous, self-navigating flying systems of various kinds (e.g. huge ones , microscopic one…) Remember, to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system of a size of a fruit fly is an engineering SCI-FI even in 21st century. What is even worse and even more absurd, these biologists claim, that this miracle (designing autonomous flying system without an engineer) — happened multiple times REPEATEDLY AND INDEPENDENTLY in various evolutionary not related lineages (flying dinosaurs, birds, insects, mammals…) So how absurd does the Darwin’s theory sound in 21st century ? Absurd absurd absurd fairy tales and just-so-stories for people who don’t use the head." Can you explain to us from an engineer’s viewpoint how the good Lord Jesus ascended up to ‘heaven’ from a standing start and without the use of any propellant at least a thousand years before the rocket was invented? Matt10 No sir, believing God totally requires the gift of faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2020 12:57:07 GMT -5
I respect the appeal to faith, rather than the invention of evidence. Hitchens once said during a debate, (ie) "do yourself the honor of saying 'it's faith'", to a theist trying to use evidence to support his individual faith.
Also, if one looks through the lens of an engineer, one will see as an engineer: top down design. Humans can't be faulted for that, but it is built on an untestable premise: a designer. This makes it an "unscientific" view. This doesn't make it "wrong" per se - it well could be a designer meticulously built everything, but since we cannot know anything about the designer, it is outside the scope of natural science.
What I just described isn't atheism - it's simply "not theism".
This conflict is over 2000 years old, when the post-Socratic schools of philosophy (for whom the only reason to study the natural world was to discover the minds of the designer) ridiculed the Atomists as being "atheists", since their system of naturalism didn't specifically rely on Gods.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2020 13:10:37 GMT -5
Can you explain to us from an engineer’s viewpoint how the good Lord Jesus ascended up to ‘heaven’ from a standing start and without the use of any propellant at least a thousand years before the rocket was invented? Matt10 No sir, that totally requires the gift of faith. I was pretty sure you couldn’t. It’s always telling to note how believers apply different standards when it comes to testing the veracity of the beliefs of others as they do in relation to their own. The believer in the Christian God is quite content to use a scientific standard when scrutinising the beliefs of others but runs a mile at the thought of having their own beliefs scrutinised using the same plumb-line. Of course the reason for this is because Christian beliefs do not stand up to scientific scrutiny and the reason they do not stand up to scientific scrutiny is because they simply are not true. How, one might ask, can intelligent people believe things which from an engineer’s viewpoint can’t possibly be true and actually seem completely crazy? The answer is the gift of faith. The gift of faith is a convenient card to be played when the believer is having difficulty sustaining an argument. The gift of faith is a convenient way of explaining away belief in nonsense. How can you believe that Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt? The gift of faith. How can you still believe that Jesus is coming back when it’s perfectly obvious that he’s not. The gift of faith. How can you believe that the world is a mere six thousand years old when the science clearly proves otherwise? The gift of faith. How can you possibly believe that God can regrow your foot given that there is not a single recorded example of this happening throughout human history? The gift of faith. The gift of faith comes only through severe religious conditioning and causes a distortion in how the believer views the world. Only two days ago my Christian neighbour claimed that the coronavirus was a sign that we were entering the last days. That was his gift of faith distorting his view of the world. Anyone with an ounce of wit knows that pandemics have been around for centuries right back to the time of the Antonine Plague, each one a sign to the believer of the end of the world no doubt, but still the world hasn’t ended. Anyone applying double standards cannot be relied upon to make an objective argument. And they certainly can’t be relied upon to make a scientific one. If one is willing to set aside the laws of physics as soon as they conflict with one’s own beliefs then one is not equipped to speak with any credibility on science or engineering. And I have to say it is ironic to be laying a change of ‘fairy tales which are “absurd in the highest possible degree”’ while claiming belief in a book which speaks of a beast with seven heads and a talking donkey. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 17, 2020 17:54:09 GMT -5
Can you explain to us from an engineer’s viewpoint how the good Lord Jesus ascended up to ‘heaven’ from a standing start and without the use of any propellant at least a thousand years before the rocket was invented? Matt10 No sir, believing God totally requires the gift of faith. “We may define “faith” as the firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of “faith.” We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.” ~ Bertrand Russell
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2020 17:56:59 GMT -5
From an engineers viewpoint: "Darwinism always was a storytelling. What is worse, these Darwinian stories and fairy tales are “absurd in the highest possible degree” (like Darwin would say), especially in 21st century. These guys (biologists – natural science graduates) claiming, in 21st century, without a shame, that high advanced, autonomous, self-navigating flying systems self-designed, and no engineer was needed. Biologists claiming that in 21st century!!!! So how absurd it sounds? It is crazy… lets close all technical universities around the world, and lets send engineering students to biology classes… There they will learn, how to design sophisticated autonomous, self-navigating flying systems of various kinds (e.g. huge ones , microscopic one…) Remember, to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system of a size of a fruit fly is an engineering SCI-FI even in 21st century. What is even worse and even more absurd, these biologists claim, that this miracle (designing autonomous flying system without an engineer) — happened multiple times REPEATEDLY AND INDEPENDENTLY in various evolutionary not related lineages (flying dinosaurs, birds, insects, mammals…) So how absurd does the Darwin’s theory sound in 21st century ? Absurd absurd absurd fairy tales and just-so-stories for people who don’t use the head." Can you explain to us from an engineer’s viewpoint how the good Lord Jesus ascended up to ‘heaven’ from a standing start and without the use of any propellant at least a thousand years before the rocket was invented? Matt10 most people would call that levitation...
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 17, 2020 18:00:28 GMT -5
Can you explain to us from an engineer’s viewpoint how the good Lord Jesus ascended up to ‘heaven’ from a standing start and without the use of any propellant at least a thousand years before the rocket was invented? Matt10 most people would call that levitation... Most people would just except that it couldn’t have happened and be done with it..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2020 18:30:44 GMT -5
Can you explain to us from an engineer’s viewpoint how the good Lord Jesus ascended up to ‘heaven’ from a standing start and without the use of any propellant at least a thousand years before the rocket was invented? Matt10 most people would call that levitation... I’d suggest that the only people who would call that levitation are people who misunderstand the meaning of the term levitation. Levitation is the process by which an object is held aloft, without mechanical support, in a stable position. Even if you believe the rather far fetched story of the ascension of Jesus up to heaven you still wouldn’t call it levitation. There is no suggestion in any of the accounts in the gospels that Jesus was merely held aloft without mechanical support in a stable position. Had that been the story it would have been a lot more believable. Instead the claim is that he was lifted off the ground and kept on ascending into the sky until he was out of sight. One can only speculate at his journey after that as he passed through the troposphere, the stratosphere and the mesosphere and presumably on towards the edge of the universe without any breathing apparatus. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2020 19:13:09 GMT -5
Can you explain to us from an engineer’s viewpoint how the good Lord Jesus ascended up to ‘heaven’ from a standing start and without the use of any propellant at least a thousand years before the rocket was invented? Matt10 most people would call that levitation... Most would call it myth.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2020 19:47:34 GMT -5
Is this your source? Can you post the reference for the scientific literature of evolutionary theory you were reading. And some examples of the use of words you listed. Thanks in advance. It explains the view that theists hold. It seems that theists feel that atheists 'worship' scientists. Darwin formulated an existing theory that has been modified many times to fit the new data. His work is respected but, like J.J. Thomson and Rutherford, the foundation they laid has been modified and built upon. Claiming scientists worship scientists is another way creationist set up straw men to knock down.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 17, 2020 21:54:24 GMT -5
From an engineers viewpoint: "Darwinism always was a storytelling. What is worse, these Darwinian stories and fairy tales are “absurd in the highest possible degree” (like Darwin would say), especially in 21st century. These guys (biologists – natural science graduates) claiming, in 21st century, without a shame, that high advanced, autonomous, self-navigating flying systems self-designed, and no engineer was needed. Biologists claiming that in 21st century!!!! So how absurd it sounds? It is crazy… lets close all technical universities around the world, and lets send engineering students to biology classes… There they will learn, how to design sophisticated autonomous, self-navigating flying systems of various kinds (e.g. huge ones , microscopic one…) Remember, to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system of a size of a fruit fly is an engineering SCI-FI even in 21st century. What is even worse and even more absurd, these biologists claim, that this miracle (designing autonomous flying system without an engineer) — happened multiple times REPEATEDLY AND INDEPENDENTLY in various evolutionary not related lineages (flying dinosaurs, birds, insects, mammals…) So how absurd does the Darwin’s theory sound in 21st century ? Absurd absurd absurd fairy tales and just-so-stories for people who don’t use the head." Sorry, Ed but those comparisons just do not work!
Once worker was trying to make just such a claim as yours and my husband, (-who BTW, was professing & professed to his dying day which was at the age of 90)-told the worker right there in the meeting just how such a claim was wrong.
Some of the others quietly told my husband later that what my husband had said needed to be said!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2020 22:00:33 GMT -5
From an engineers viewpoint: "Darwinism always was a storytelling. What is worse, these Darwinian stories and fairy tales are “absurd in the highest possible degree” (like Darwin would say), especially in 21st century. These guys (biologists – natural science graduates) claiming, in 21st century, without a shame, that high advanced, autonomous, self-navigating flying systems self-designed, and no engineer was needed. Biologists claiming that in 21st century!!!! So how absurd it sounds? It is crazy… lets close all technical universities around the world, and lets send engineering students to biology classes… There they will learn, how to design sophisticated autonomous, self-navigating flying systems of various kinds (e.g. huge ones , microscopic one…) Remember, to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system of a size of a fruit fly is an engineering SCI-FI even in 21st century. What is even worse and even more absurd, these biologists claim, that this miracle (designing autonomous flying system without an engineer) — happened multiple times REPEATEDLY AND INDEPENDENTLY in various evolutionary not related lineages (flying dinosaurs, birds, insects, mammals…) So how absurd does the Darwin’s theory sound in 21st century ? Absurd absurd absurd fairy tales and just-so-stories for people who don’t use the head." Sorry, Ed but those comparisons just do not work!
Once worker was trying to make just such a claim as yours and my husband, (-who BTW, was professing & professed to his dying day which was at the age of 90)-told the worker right there in the meeting just how such a claim was wrong.
Some of the others quietly told my husband later that what my husband had said needed to be said! well done for him! I love the folks who are professing, but who are willing to stand up and speak plainly.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 17, 2020 23:01:19 GMT -5
From an engineers viewpoint: "Darwinism always was a storytelling. What is worse, these Darwinian stories and fairy tales are “absurd in the highest possible degree” (like Darwin would say), especially in 21st century. These guys (biologists – natural science graduates) claiming, in 21st century, without a shame, that high advanced, autonomous, self-navigating flying systems self-designed, and no engineer was needed. Biologists claiming that in 21st century!!!! So how absurd it sounds? It is crazy… lets close all technical universities around the world, and lets send engineering students to biology classes… There they will learn, how to design sophisticated autonomous, self-navigating flying systems of various kinds (e.g. huge ones , microscopic one…) Remember, to design an autonomous self-navigating flying system of a size of a fruit fly is an engineering SCI-FI even in 21st century. What is even worse and even more absurd, these biologists claim, that this miracle (designing autonomous flying system without an engineer) — happened multiple times REPEATEDLY AND INDEPENDENTLY in various evolutionary not related lineages (flying dinosaurs, birds, insects, mammals…) So how absurd does the Darwin’s theory sound in 21st century ? Absurd absurd absurd fairy tales and just-so-stories for people who don’t use the head." Again, this is the setting up of straw men to easily knock down. This is as silly as the example of a tornado going through a junk yard and producing a 747. Not only does it not reflect anything claimed by the theory of evolution but it also points our the ignorance of the person making the analogy. The probability of me typing a 45 digit number that you have in mind is 1/100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. You could say it would be long odds. A trunk-load of monkeys probably wouldn't do it this year (although there is a non-zero chance that it would be the first number entered!) On the other hand the probability of me typing a 45 digit number is 1.0 - a certainty. Ta Da - 948,921,994,733,265,399,888,318,524,916,314,821,377,775,911 Creationists use the argument that assembling all of the parts to create a man (or a flying animal) is slim. But the math is very different if there is no target. It is like shooting first and then placing the target. A direct hit every time. No predetermined target gives positive results every time. Some are better than others but there is always a result. The difference is saying to the universe "Take all this stuff and create a man." vs. saying "Take this stuff and see what kind of organisms develop and reproduce most successfully". Based on the ability to survive, any member of the family Armadillidiidae will be here long after man, feasting.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 18, 2020 7:29:02 GMT -5
Is this your source? Can you post the reference for the scientific literature of evolutionary theory you were reading. And some examples of the use of words you listed. Thanks in advance. It explains the view that theists hold. It seems that theists feel that atheists 'worship' scientists. Darwin formulated an existing theory that has been modified many times to fit the new data. His work is respected but, like J.J. Thomson and Rutherford, the foundation they laid has been modified and built upon. Claiming scientists worship scientists is another way creationist set up straw men to knock down. It seems you are not always correct about how theists feel or what they are claiming. Atheists sometimes worship scientists (especially the evangelistic Dawkins and Hitchens types) taking in every word as gospel truth, but more often, they worship science itself. Allow me to offer you the definition: Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. You believe this yet it is not a belief that can be scientifically proven.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 18, 2020 8:18:33 GMT -5
No sir, that totally requires the gift of faith. I was pretty sure you couldn’t. It’s always telling to note how believers apply different standards when it comes to testing the veracity of the beliefs of others as they do in relation to their own. The believer in the Christian God is quite content to use a scientific standard when scrutinising the beliefs of others but runs a mile at the thought of having their own beliefs scrutinised using the same plumb-line. Of course the reason for this is because Christian beliefs do not stand up to scientific scrutiny and the reason they do not stand up to scientific scrutiny is because they simply are not true. How, one might ask, can intelligent people believe things which from an engineer’s viewpoint can’t possibly be true and actually seem completely crazy? The answer is the gift of faith. The gift of faith is a convenient card to be played when the believer is having difficulty sustaining an argument. The gift of faith is a convenient way of explaining away belief in nonsense. How can you believe that Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt? The gift of faith. How can you still believe that Jesus is coming back when it’s perfectly obvious that he’s not. The gift of faith. How can you believe that the world is a mere six thousand years old when the science clearly proves otherwise? The gift of faith. How can you possibly believe that God can regrow your foot given that there is not a single recorded example of this happening throughout human history? The gift of faith. The gift of faith comes only through severe religious conditioning and causes a distortion in how the believer views the world. Only two days ago my Christian neighbour claimed that the coronavirus was a sign that we were entering the last days. That was his gift of faith distorting his view of the world. Anyone with an ounce of wit knows that pandemics have been around for centuries right back to the time of the Antonine Plague, each one a sign to the believer of the end of the world no doubt, but still the world hasn’t ended. Anyone applying double standards cannot be relied upon to make an objective argument. And they certainly can’t be relied upon to make a scientific one. If one is willing to set aside the laws of physics as soon as they conflict with one’s own beliefs then one is not equipped to speak with any credibility on science or engineering. And I have to say it is ironic to be laying a change of ‘fairy tales which are “absurd in the highest possible degree”’ while claiming belief in a book which speaks of a beast with seven heads and a talking donkey. Matt10 With such a dripping sarcasmic opening, I had to plug my nose but I managed to read all of your post. The gift of faith is not a card to be played, its just a part of human life. It's not nearly as clear as you have been led to believe. I'm currently reading Starlight, Time and the New Physics by Dr. John Hartnett. He builds on the work of secular cosmologist Moshe Carmeli. Almost all of the engineers I know are Christian, so you are obviously lacking information about the field of engineering and what is required for success. Maybe you should get out more and meet some of your other neighbors?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 18, 2020 13:55:19 GMT -5
According to what creationists believe covid-19 is an engineered virus made by God.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 18, 2020 14:07:40 GMT -5
It seems you are not always correct about how theists feel or what they are claiming. I have read a lot of posts from theists and I cannot begin to count the number of times that the atheists have been accused of worshiping scientists. Perhaps we need to look at the definition of the verb to worship. certainly not worshipable material. Show reverence and adoration for a deity and honor with religious rites.I can't think of anyone posting who shows reverence/adoration for any scientist, living or dead. I am not certain how many people take everythi Dawkins says as absolute truth. As a biologist he has put forth some well researched and well supported work in his field. As an atheist he has his ideas and is willing to argue them. But they fall into the belief catagory and he is welcome to them. Hitchens is not a scientist. Allow me to offer you the whole quote: Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, implying a cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards. Scientism fits much more closely with the creationists, especially the supporters of intelligent design, who are trying to turn their beliefs, with no theories or supporting data, into a science. But I don't believe what you claim. I believe that sciente, the scientific method, is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge, not solidifying beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 18, 2020 16:33:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 18, 2020 16:49:34 GMT -5
It seems you are not always correct about how theists feel or what they are claiming. I have read a lot of posts from theists and I cannot begin to count the number of times that the atheists have been accused of worshiping scientists. Perhaps we need to look at the definition of the verb to worship. certainly not worshipable material. Show reverence and adoration for a deity and honor with religious rites.I can't think of anyone posting who shows reverence/adoration for any scientist, living or dead. I am not certain how many people take everythi Dawkins says as absolute truth. As a biologist he has put forth some well researched and well supported work in his field. As an atheist he has his ideas and is willing to argue them. But they fall into the belief catagory and he is welcome to them. Hitchens is not a scientist. Allow me to offer you the whole quote: Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, implying a cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards. Scientism fits much more closely with the creationists, especially the supporters of intelligent design, who are trying to turn their beliefs, with no theories or supporting data, into a science. But I don't believe what you claim. I believe that sciente, the scientific method, is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge, not solidifying beliefs. Talk about cherry picking; allow me to suggest that you read further. “the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.” "Philosophers such as Alexander Rosenberg have also adopted "scientism" as a name for the view that science is the only reliable source of knowledge." "Tom Sorell provides this definition: "Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture." "It is used to criticize a totalizing view of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true way to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things;" “In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.”
|
|
|
Post by Ed on Mar 18, 2020 16:50:39 GMT -5
According to what creationists believe covid-19 is an engineered virus made by God. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 18, 2020 16:51:37 GMT -5
According to what creationists believe covid-19 is an engineered virus made by God. Correct. LOL well then he's one nasty hombre in my books. Carry on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2020 18:46:24 GMT -5
According to what creationists believe covid-19 is an engineered virus made by God. Correct. 1. What evidence do you have that Covid19 was created by the Christian God? 2. What evidence do you have that the Christian God actually exists in reality and is not merely a figment of your imagination based on the fictional biblical character? 3. What sort of God would create something as devastating as Covid19 and then stand idly by watching the havoc and untold suffering caused by it while choosing to do nothing to prevent it? (a) A loving God (b) A caring God (c) A psychopathic monster Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2020 19:35:50 GMT -5
There are 14 scientists called Steve who publicly dissent from Darwinism. www.discovery.org/m/2019/10/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-09302019.pdfThere 1,448 scientists called Steve who publicly assert that “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.” ncse.ngo/project-steveMatt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2020 21:25:35 GMT -5
According to what creationists believe covid-19 is an engineered virus made by God. Correct. hey, at least Ed is consistent. I liked Hitchens, so-so with Dawkins. I like the philosophy of Jordan Peterson as well. I don't worship any of them. They're just people.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 18, 2020 22:07:17 GMT -5
Can you explain to us from an engineer’s viewpoint how the good Lord Jesus ascended up to ‘heaven’ from a standing start and without the use of any propellant at least a thousand years before the rocket was invented? Matt10 No sir, believing God totally requires the gift of faith. Ed,- then why the hell do you even compare engineers, -who work with real objects in real time, -with "faith?"
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 18, 2020 23:20:09 GMT -5
1. What evidence do you have that Covid19 was created by the Christian God? 2. What evidence do you have that the Christian God actually exists in reality and is not merely a figment of your imagination based on the fictional biblical character? 3. What sort of God would create something as devastating as Covid19 and then stand idly by watching the havoc and untold suffering caused by it while choosing to do nothing to prevent it? (a) A loving God (b) A caring God (c) A psychopathic monster Matt10
1. Ya never know... I heard Covid19 came from bats? Some Chinese eat bats. Not exactly kosher, "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you" (Leviticus 11:20). But God did send a plague, "So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men" (2 Samuel 24:15).
2. Our perception is that our God is a nonfictional biblical character. The evidence will be revealed after our choices are made.
3. Not all devastating things come from God, sometimes we initiate our own destructive devises, including biological contamination of all sorts.
(a) A loving God, but also a God of judgement. (b) A caring God, so much so that He died for our transgressions. (c) A psychopathic monster, that would be the adversary, that old serpent Dr Death.
|
|