How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? (page 20)

hooberus

rem said:
The only presupposition a real scientist *should* have is that all theories should be materialistic and falsifiable (testable). Whether you like it or not, that's what science is.

So a martian scientist studying this object through his telescope should limit himself to only materialistic theories as to its origin?

By limiting himself to only materialistic theories as to its origin, the martian materialistic scientist would be forced to conclude that this is a materialistic/ naturalistic formation. He probably would think that formed by current rock formation /erosion etc. processes working over many years or perhaps rapid windstorm formation etc. However as a materialist all of his theories would be naturalistic, and he would exclude any sort of intelligent creation from outside sources.

You see, his apriori bias towards materialism casused him to deny creation as a possibility, and led him to wrong conclusions. This is the same bias that evolutionists have.

Anything dealing with non-materialistic hypotheses is not science.

A martian materialist scientist would probably agree with you and say that the above formation being created "could be true" but it would be a non-materialistic hypothesis and would "not be science."

The martian scientist would be wrong however. The word science comes from the latin and means"knowledge", it does not mean materialism/naturalism. Thus if creation is true, then it is science (knowledge).

Azalo

let this thread die please!

RubaDub

Unfortunately, they DIDN'T all fit into the ark.

For example, plueurodoms, memverts, ponrubs, edoins, coetads, gitrubs and many others didn't make it.

That's why we don't see or read anything about them anymore.

***** Rub a Dub

hooberus

Abaddon, if you will remember at one point in time I was preparing to give a response to dendrochronology as related to the flood. However, you took up my time and patience with your accusations.

rem

Hooberus,

There is such a thing as materialistic creation. In fact, you just provided an example of it. Materialistic creation can be studied scientifically. It's called archeology.

By the way, what do you think of "Scholar" who posts on this board? Do you think he is a wise man for sticking to his presuppositions about 607BCE or do you find him foolish? Just curious.

rem

stillajwexelder

See the WTBTS Video -- Noah - he walked with the true God - tha ttells you how

peacefulpete

A martian scientist using a materialist approach to study would quickly recognise the evidence of intelligent causation that differentiate such a work from formations made thru unaided processes. Such as chisel marks and abandoned tools. He would then postulate a being intelligent and dexterous euf to have sculpted it. This is entirely arrived at thru materialist science. This is the same approach taken in identifying ancient artifacts by 'earth' scientists to lead to the inescapable conclusion that humans are millions of years old and evolved from lesser intelligent hominids.

A supernaturalist approach to science would have prevented the martians from ever progressing to the point of having the opportunity to see Mt. Rushmore. He would still be worshipping the sun, the benevolent giver of light and warmth.

peacefulpete

A martian scientist using a materialist approach to study would quickly recognise the evidence of intelligent causation that differentiate such a work from formations made thru unaided processes. Such as chisel marks and abandoned tools. He would then postulate a being intelligent and dexterous euf to have sculpted it. This is entirely arrived at thru materialist science. This is the same approach taken in identifying ancient artifacts by 'earth' scientists to lead to the inescapable conclusion that humans are millions of years old and evolved from lesser intelligent hominids.

A supernaturalist approach to science would have prevented the martians from ever progressing to the point of having the opportunity to see Mt. Rushmore. He would still be worshipping the sun, the benevolent giver of light and warmth.

Faraon

..He was quoted to show his apriori bias toward materialism.
?Hense the "falsifiabilty" argument should not be used as an excuse to apriori exclude creation from consideration along with evolution.
...Also it has been shown that many evolutionists have apriori limited themselves?
...You see, his apriori bias towards materialism casused him to deny creation as a possibility

Could someone tell me if apriori is the new word of the week?

First I consulted http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apriori . The answer was:

See the Top 10 Ask Jeeves results for "apriori"
No entry found for apriori.

I then consulted http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=a%20priori . I received this reply among others.

a priori adj 1: involving deductive reasoning from a general principle to a necessary effect; not supported by fact; "an a priori judgment" [ant: a posteriori ] 2: based on hypothesis or theory rather than experiment adv : derived by logic, without observed facts [ant: a posteriori ]

Are these two last words the ones that are meant by apriori?

If there is a meaning for apriori, could someone please define it for me? I noticed its extensive use in this thread, and would like to answer properly.

rem

Faraon,

You are correct, the proper spelling is a priori and it is supposed to be italicized as well and there might even be an accent mark somewhere I'm missing... we were just getting lazy. :)

It basically means that you have a set of beliefs already in mind... a preconcieved notion based on your own set of logic and not on evidence... sort of like a presupposition.

e.g. Creationists have an a priori belief that the Bible is the word of god. (a belief not supported by evidence)

That's how I understand it, anyway.

rem

How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark?

Share this