Should science be secular?

[wanstronian]

Genesis
Chapter 1 1 1 In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth, 2 2 the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, while a mighty wind swept over the waters. 3 Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. fact - light began
4 God saw how good the light was. God then separated the light from the darkness. fact - absence of light is darkness - darkness began
5 3 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” Thus evening came, and morning followed–the first day. fact - we call these night and day til this very day
6 Then God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the waters, to separate one body of water from the other.” And so it happened: fact (only recently discovered - fresh water in the depths of the earth
7 God made the dome, and it separated the water above the dome from the water below it. fact - water is held in the atmosphere from which rain descends.
8 God called the dome “the sky.” Evening came, and morning followed–the second day. fact - night and day are cyclical
9 Then God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered into a single basin, so that the dry land may appear.” And so it happened: the water under the sky was gathered into its basin, and the dry land appeared. fact - land appeared
10 God called the dry land “the earth,” and the basin of the water he called “the sea.” God saw how good it was. fact - we make these distinctions til today.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth vegetation: every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it.” And so it happened: fact - stuff grows - they reproduce through seed
12 the earth brought forth every kind of plant that bears seed and every kind of fruit tree on earth that bears fruit with its seed in it. God saw how good it was. 13 Evening came, and morning followed–the third day. yup
14 Then God said: “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky, to separate day from night. Let them mark the fixed times, the days and the years, fact - we use to mark time to this very day
15 and serve as luminaries in the dome of the sky, to shed light upon the earth.” And so it happened: fact - they provide light
16 God made the two great lights, the greater one to govern the day, and the lesser one to govern the night; and he made the stars. fact - sun and moon

Yes, I thought you might say that. You’re conflating facts with observations. I won’t go through all your errors, because there are too many, but I’ll just use your first claim as an example:

You claim that “Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.” is a fact because light began. This is not a fact. This is an observation, that light exists. The assertion in the bible is that God did it. This is not a fact, and cannot be made so purely by observation that light exists.

All your other comments are invalid for precisely the same reason.

To spell it out: Observation of a phenomenon is NOT proof positive that a book stating the origin of the phenomenon is true.

 

[wanstronian]

You are missing a huge point. Evo claims the pathways must be incremental. Every step of the way fitness must be improved or it is wasted energy. Common design does not need this claim.

Look back at the mousetrap. A very small short trigger bar will not allow the mousetrap to work. By incrementally lengthening the trigger bar, does not make it work. Until you get to the correct length. All the steps in between have no function. The mousetrap dies long before.

Unbelievable. You said you were read up on evolution, but this post clearly shows that you know absolutely nothing about it, other than it conflicts with your dogma and you don’t like that.

So instead, you parade a long-debunked, non-explanatory, conjecturous alternative as science.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The simple fact remains that it was not evolution that created the first life form in all its complexity, from which all other life forms have evolved. There is no evidence or proof of that, and the likelihood is so remote as to be nigh onto impossible.

So you think it’s far more appropriate to fill the gaps in our knowledge with a Supernatural Transdimensional Hyperbeing.

Biologists are working the problem and are getting closer to an answer. They can now create all four neucleobases in a lab. It’s only a matter of time…

 

[colmcille1]

So you think it’s far more appropriate to fill the gaps in our knowledge with a Supernatural Transdimensional Hyperbeing.

Biologists are working the problem and are getting closer to an answer. They can now create all four neucleobases in a lab. It’s only a matter of time…

So you would place great faith in the work of said biologists, you hope that said “answer” will be the one you want and no doubt you will be charitable if that “answer” is, for your purposes, wrong?
So, you would claim Faith, Hope and Charity on your voyage!
We are all human made in His image.
God Bless.

 

[tonyrey]

Inanimate substances are quite different from living organisms with regard to their physical complexity and organization. A crystal lacks directiveness and has no urge to survive.

The mere fact that you have **evaded **every single one of my questions with an **unsubstantiated **assertion that I misconstrue your remarks is sufficient evidence that you are unable to defend your belief that reasoning is derived from, and based on, irrational processes.

No one else can evoke anything more for you because you are so deeply entrenched in your physicalism that you are unwilling to contemplate its absurdity. In other words you are allowing your reasoning to be dominated by factors over which you are not exercising any control!

 

[colmcille1]

The mere fact that you have **evaded **every single one of my questions with an **unsubstantiated **assertion that I misconstrue your remarks is sufficient evidence that you are unable to defend your belief that reasoning is derived from, and based on, irrational processes.

No one else can evoke anything more for you because you are so deeply entrenched in your physicalism that you are unwilling to contemplate its absurdity. In other words you are allowing your reasoning to be dominated by factors over which you are not exercising any control!

Excellent response!
God Bless.

 

[larkin31]

The mere fact that you have **evaded **every single one of my questions with an **unsubstantiated **assertion that I misconstrue your remarks is sufficient evidence that you are unable to defend your belief that reasoning is derived from, and based on, irrational processes.

Those questions did not merit answers. If you would rephrase without the misconstructions and irrelevancies I would be happy to answer.

No one else can evoke anything more for you because you are so deeply entrenched in your physicalism that you are unwilling to contemplate its absurdity.

WHat is “physicalism” and how is it “absurd”?

In other words you are allowing your reasoning to be dominated by factors over which you are not exercising any control!

Just how am I not in control? I am sure not letting you bait me. That is a form of self-control, no? You seem to have left the topic entirely in this post.

 

[larkin31]

Unbelievable. You said you were read up on evolution, but this post clearly shows that you know absolutely nothing about it, other than it conflicts with your dogma and you don’t like that.

So instead, you parade a long-debunked, non-explanatory, conjecturous alternative as science.

Indeed

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I thought you might say that. You’re conflating facts with observations. I won’t go through all your errors, because there are too many, but I’ll just use your first claim as an example:

You claim that “Then God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.” is a fact because light began. This is not a fact. This is an observation, that light exists. The assertion in the bible is that God did it. This is not a fact, and cannot be made so purely by observation that light exists.

All your other comments are invalid for precisely the same reason.

To spell it out: Observation of a phenomenon is NOT proof positive that a book stating the origin of the phenomenon is true.

Outside of who did it can we agree on the red?

 

[buffalo]

Unbelievable. You said you were read up on evolution, but this post clearly shows that you know absolutely nothing about it, other than it conflicts with your dogma and you don’t like that.

So instead, you parade a long-debunked, non-explanatory, conjecturous alternative as science.

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.

Are you claiming saltations here?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

larkin

*And what does whether they are believers or not have to do with their science? *

Obviously, if you are an atheist, you cannot abide the notion of intelligent design, because that would imply a designer God. You have therefore nixed the notion before you even look at the evidence for design.

It is the same problem that impeded Einstein’s ability to grasp the Big Bang. He had decided before he developed relativity that the universe was infinite and eternal. It could not have a start, and so there could not have been a Creator. In other words, he allowed his bias against Genesis to influence his physics. He himself called it the biggest blunder of his life.

 

[larkin31]

larkin

*And what does whether they are believers or not have to do with their science? *

Obviously, if you are an atheist, you cannot abide the notion of intelligent design, because that would imply a designer God. You have therefore nixed the notion before you even look at the evidence for design.

This sentence presumes design evidence before one does the looking. THAT is bias. I would LOVE evidence of a God or creator. That would SATISFY me greatly, and make the owner of that copyrighted material famously rich and renowned.

Meanwhile we wait, and wait.

ps: you have inaccurately summarized what Einstein called his mistake. But I am not surprised that you did this. It shows your bias.

 

[buffalo]

This sentence presumes design evidence before one does the looking. THAT is bias. I would LOVE evidence of a God or creator. That would SATISFY me greatly, and make the owner of that copyrighted material famously rich and renowned.

Meanwhile we wait, and wait.

ps: you have inaccurately summarized what Einstein called his mistake. But I am not surprised that you did this. It shows your bias.

What do evo’s presume when they do there reasoning? Give me a break…

However, humans know design when they see it. So to apply the CSI test based on our observations is not a problem at all. If it doesn’t pass then so be it. Isn’t that what investigation is all about?

 

[tonyrey]

Just the sort of brainless, misrepresentational snipe we’ve come to expect from you. Well done, you must be so proud of your sense of humour.

It’s ironic and amusing that you indulge in plenty of sarcastic comments about others - and support a fellow atheist when he makes a derogatory comment about me - but you object when you get a taste of your own medicine…

 

[tonyrey]

The mere fact that you have evaded every single one of my questions with an unsubstantiated assertion that I misconstrue your remarks is sufficient evidence that you are unable to defend your belief that reasoning is derived from, and based on, irrational processes.

How can I rephrase when you have not even specified the alleged misconstructions and irrelevancies?

No one else can evoke anything more for you because you are so deeply entrenched in your physicalism that you are unwilling to contemplate its absurdity.

WHat is “physicalism” and how is it “absurd”?

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is derived from, and dependent on, physical objects. It is absurd because the power of reason is used to reduce itself to a product of unreasoning events…

In other words you are allowing your reasoning to be dominated by factors over which you are not exercising any control!

Just how am I not in control? I am sure not letting you bait me. That is a form of self-control, no?

I am certtainly not baiting you. I am taking you at your word! If you believe all your thoughts have physical causes you cannot possibly have control over them! Self-control becomes an illusion because there is no self in your scheme of things…

You seem to have left the topic entirely in this post.

On the contrary it is directly related because you believe science can in principle explain all personal activity. In effect you are presuming that religion explains nothing and not only should science be secular it cannot be anything else because there is nothing left to explain!

 

[tonyrey]

Excellent response!
God Bless.

Thank you. There’s more to come!

 

[Moonstruck888]

So you would place great faith in the work of said biologists, you hope that said “answer” will be the one you want and no doubt you will be charitable if that “answer” is, for your purposes, wrong?
So, you would claim Faith, Hope and Charity on your voyage!
We are all human made in His image.
God Bless.

Could you repeat that in English please?

If this kind of irrational drivel that doesn’t even make grammatical sense let alone anything else is what passes for reason from a human made in his image, then I thank God (or whatever) that I’m an ape.

 

[larkin31]

What do evo’s presume when they do there reasoning? Give me a break…

You deserve no break. Evo’s primarily base their work on chemistry, physics, archeology, geology, and mathematics. These are based on empirical material evidence, and their conclusions, properly limited, go no further. They work in the material world and speak of the material world. That is their proper purview, like it or not. You simply whine that scientists don’t explore the supernatural. Which is absurdly non-scientific.

However, humans know design when they see it

This is virtually so self-evident that it could be in an elementary school book. It is meaningless in a scholarly sense of pursuing scientific knowledge. “Designs” in nature OF COURSE are seen everywhere: nature has patterns of all kinds.

I don’t know why I bother with you.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Designs contain patterns, but patterns never contain symbols or designs.

Correct, and there are no symbols or designs in biological life… Humans included…

 

[larkin31]

Physicalism is the thesis that everything is derived from, and dependent on, physical objects. It is absurd because the power of reason is used to reduce itself to a product of unreasoning events…

Your car parts won’t get you to Rapid City, either, if you take them all apart. Your point here is meaningless.

I am certtainly not baiting you. I am taking you at your word! If you believe all your thoughts have physical causes you cannot possibly have control over them!

That’s an absurd claim. It has no basis, and you give no “reason” for it.

Self-control becomes an illusion because there is no self in your scheme of things…

The “self” is the workings of my neural net in coordination with each other.

On the contrary it is directly related because you believe science can in principle explain all personal activity.

No, I have not said that it “can”. Presently, it cannot. Stop misrepresenting my statements. I consider it dishonest (from an adult).

In effect you are presuming that religion explains nothing

WRONG! I have made no comment on what I think that religion explains. You really are a poor thinker in this conversation. You constantly make associated assumptions and then ascribe them to me erroneously.