Shining One

Joined

• started 82 topics
• posted 1,321 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Shining One

• 
  49

  God and Science

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  now here is an interesting take on all things..... .

  .

  http://www.crosscurrents.org/godand.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shining One

  “What proof do you have that the earth is older than 10000 years? Are you absolutely certain that the evidence can be interpreted only in one way?”
  
  >Have you ever heard of radiometric dating?
  
  Yes.
  
  >Yes the evidence can be interperated in several different manners however, the changes to rates of radiometric decay required to make the age of the Earth very young are considered irrevelant (1% margin of error) even by the scientests that porport such theorys.
  
  What proof do you have that the rates have always been constant? How much of the various dating methods are dependent on a presupposed figure of millions or billions of years?
  
  Rex
• 
  49

  God and Science

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  now here is an interesting take on all things..... .

  .

  http://www.crosscurrents.org/godand.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shining One

  "A naturalistic view demands explanations that are logically coherent and are demonstrable in the natural world."
  
  'Logical coherence' only goes so far until it breaks down into conjecture. The conjecture that any person chooses to use, not just a scientist, is related entirely to that person's presuppositions. This is one of the reasons that some atheists and agnostics have become deists or even Christians.
  Science consistently derives speculation from theories that are inobservable and undemonstrated. Again, this goes back to presuppositions that may or may not be accurate. The burden of proof for your statements is on you, btw.
  
  "Religion just makes stuff up without regard for evidence"
  
  That's a broad and all encompassing ststement. In some cases this is true but can you prove this specifically?
  Rex
• 
  27

  Dembski's defense: quote and link(s) for the non-dogmatic

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.11.id_coming_clean.htm .

  ill come back to what it means for design in nature to have empirical content, but i want for the moment to stay with the worry that intelligent design is but a disguised form of creationism.

  ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and theyll deny it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shining One

  Since the resident 'scholars' refuse to have an honest discussion of Dembski's defense, I have decided to post a larger portion of it. If you SCHOLARS will actually let your bigotry and Belligerence go long enough to look at the man's argument, you might learn to be more balanced and TOLERANT.
  
  "So far I’m not saying anything different from standard complementarianism, the view that science and Scripture point to the same reality, albeit from different vantages. Where I part company with complementarianism is in arguing that when science points to a transcendent reality, it can do so as science and not merely as religion. In particular, I argue that design in nature is empirically detectable and that the claim that natural systems exhibit design can have empirical content."
  
  For some of you less bright 'scholars', this is a claim that 'evidence' backs up the I.D. argument.
  
  "even so, there’s a deeper issue underlying my unwillingness to renounce unsavory associates, and that concerns how one chooses conversation partners and rejects others as cranks. Throughout my last ten years as a public advocate for intelligent design, I’ve encountered a pervasive dogmatism in the academy. In my case, this dogmatism has led fellow academicians (I hesitate to call them “colleagues” since they’ve made it clear that I’m no colleague of theirs) to trash my entire academic record and accomplishments simply because I have doubts about Darwinism, because I don’t think the rules of science are inviolable, and because I think that there can be good scientific reasons for thinking that certain natural systems are designed. These are my academic sins, no more and no less. And the academy has been merciless in punishing me for these sins."
  
  Where is all of that famed 'skepticism of scientists'? Evidently they do not apply it to their sacred religion of naturalism and its main tenet, darwinism!
  
  "Now, I resolutely refuse to engage in this same form of dogmatism (or any other form of dogmatism, God willing). To be sure, I think I am right about the weaknesses of Darwinism, the provisional nature of the rules of science, and the detectability of design in nature. But I’m also willing to acknowledge that I may be wrong. Yet precisely because I’m willing to acknowledge that I might be wrong, I also want to give other people who I think are wrong, and thus with whom I disagree, a fair chance--something I’ve too often been denied. What’s more, just because people are wrong about some things doesn’t mean they are wrong about other things. Granted, a valid argument from true premises leads to a true conclusion. But a valid argument from false premises can also lead to a true conclusion. Just because people have false beliefs is no reason to dismiss their work."
  
  False premises, scholars, can mean 'presuppositions' or, why many people interpret the hard evidence in opposite ways!
  
  "One of the most insightful philosophers of science I know as well as one of my best conversation partners over the last decade is Paul Nelson, whose book On Common Descent is now in press with the University of Chicago’s Evolutionary Monographs Series. Nelson’s young earth creationism has been a matter of public record since the mid eighties. I disagree with Nelson about his views on a young earth. But I refuse to let that disagreement cast a pall over his scholarly work. A person’s presuppositions are far less important than what he or she does with them. Indeed, a person is not a crank for holding crazy ideas (I suspect all of us hold crazy ideas), but because his or her best scholarly efforts are themselves crazy. (Important point, SCHOLARS)
  If someone can prove the Goldbach conjecture (i.e., that every even number greater than two is the sum of two primes), then it doesn’t matter how many crazy ideas and hair-brained schemes he or she entertains--that person will win a Fields Medal, the mathematical equivalent of the Nobel Prize. On the other hand, if someone claims to have proven that pi is a rational number (it’s been known for over a century that pi is not only an irrational number but also a transcendental number, thus satisfying no polynomial equation with integer coefficients), then that person is a crank regardless how mainstream he or she is otherwise. Kepler had a lot of crazy ideas about embedding the solar system within nested regular geometric solids. A full half of Newton’s writings were devoted to theology and alchemy. Yesterday’s geniuses in almost every instance become today’s cranks if we refuse to separate their best work from their presuppositions."
  
  Logic in that statement as well!!!!In the prevailing scientific community, there is no TOLERANCE nor real skeptical analysis regarding the holy tenets of naruralism!
  
  "I challenge anyone to read Paul Nelson’s On Common Descent, which critiques Darwin’s idea of common descent from the vantage of developmental biology, and show why it alone among all the volumes in the University of Chicago’s Evolutionary Monographs Series does not belong there (of course I’m refusing here to countenance an ad hominem argument, which rejects the book simply because of Nelson’s creationist views). I don’t distance myself from creationists because I’ve learned much from them. So too, I don’t distance myself from Darwinists because I’ve learned much from them as well. I commend Darwinists like Michael Ruse, Will Provine, and Elliott Sober for their willingness to engage the intelligent design community and challenge us to make our arguments better."
  
  Well, maybe some of you 'great brains' can actually take this challenge or are you merely pretenders? Buy the book and let's see you prove it wrong!
  
  "Unlike Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA (“Non-Overlapping Magisteria”) principle, which separates science and religion into tight compartments and which Todd Moody has rightly called a gag-order masquerading as a principle of tolerance, intelligent design theorists desire genuine tolerance. Now the problem with genuine tolerance is that it requires being willing to engage the views of people with whom we disagree and whom in some cases we find repugnant. Unfortunately, the only alternative to the classical liberalism of John Stuart Mill, which advocates genuine tolerance, is the hypocritical liberalism of today’s political correctness."
  
  Wow, this guy tells it like it really is! HYPOCRITICAL LIBERALISM runs rampant.
  
  "In place of Gould’s NOMA, design theorists advocate a very different principle of interdisciplinary dialogue, namely, COMA: Completely Open Magisteria. It is not the business of magisteria to assert authority by drawing disciplinary boundaries. Rather, it is their business to open up inquiry so that knowledge may grow and life may be enriched (which, by the way, is the motto of the University of Chicago). Within the culture of rational discourse, authority derives from one source and one source alone--excellence. Within the culture of rational discourse, authority never needs to be asserted, much less legislated."
  
  What say you, SCHOLARS?
  Rex
• 
  27

  Dembski's defense: quote and link(s) for the non-dogmatic

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.11.id_coming_clean.htm .

  ill come back to what it means for design in nature to have empirical content, but i want for the moment to stay with the worry that intelligent design is but a disguised form of creationism.

  ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and theyll deny it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shining One

  Kid A,
  
  >What the ID-ots cant seem to grasp is that they have lost the battle, with the exception of a few hill-billy outposts in the bible belt, they are simply ignored by the scientific establishment because they are irrelevant.
  
  If they are 'simply ignored' then why is there such a ruckus going on all across the country? I mean the USA, not Little Europe Up North.
  
  >My research will be funded regardless of the occasional bible-thumping nut-bar claiming the earth is 6000 yrs old.
  
  YOUR research, you must be a SCHOLAR. Perhaps you can offer some proof of this for us?
  
  >All national and international science funding agencies are controlled by....you guessed....proponents of evolution
  
  Ha ha ha, you just made a good case for censorship, A.K.A., North Korea style. You ain't too awful smart for such a SCHOLAR.
  
  >and theres not a thing the creationists will EVER be able to do about it!! So to paraphrase another famous creationist who happens to be the president: "Bring em'on!!!" whooo-hoooo!!!!
  
  Oh really? I.D. proponents are already doing 'a thing about it' and your pet theories are 'on the run' in may areas. Naturalists cannot deal with many of the arguments that are being put forth. Your own bluster betrays a obvious level of fear for your own belief system. Just like arguing with a JW.
  Rex
• 
  27

  Dembski's defense: quote and link(s) for the non-dogmatic

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.11.id_coming_clean.htm .

  ill come back to what it means for design in nature to have empirical content, but i want for the moment to stay with the worry that intelligent design is but a disguised form of creationism.

  ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and theyll deny it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shining One

  >That is purely because no ID-ot has ever produced any hard scientific evidence for their hypothesis
  
  How about looking in the mirror, ding dong? Are you absolutely sure of that statement? If so, you need to prove it or retract it.
  
  >there has has never been any experimentation and there has never been any predictions made that could be scientifically tested to prove any aspect of ID.
  
  Really? See the questions above? Please answer them or shut up.
  Rex
• 
  27

  Dembski's defense: quote and link(s) for the non-dogmatic

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  http://www.designinference.com/documents/2000.11.id_coming_clean.htm .

  ill come back to what it means for design in nature to have empirical content, but i want for the moment to stay with the worry that intelligent design is but a disguised form of creationism.

  ask any leader in the design movement whether intelligent design is stealth creationism, and theyll deny it.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shining One

  Watch your mouth, weasel. This isn't the area for that GD stuff.
  Rex
• 
  49

  God and Science

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  now here is an interesting take on all things..... .

  .

  http://www.crosscurrents.org/godand.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shining One

  Those who cannot bear the burden of scripture are free to ignore its precepts. But we cannot have scripture in bits and pieces, applying it where we feel safe and ignoring it where we feel threatened.LOL
  
  >Except by sealing the brain off into separate airtight compartments, how is it possible to fly in airplanes, listen to the radio or take antibiotics while holding that the earth is around 10,000 years old?
  
  What proof do you have that the earth is older than 10000 years? Are you absolutely certain that the evidence can be interpreted only in one way?
  
  >At the heart of science is an essential balance between two seemingly contradictory attitudes_ an openness to new ideas, no matter how bizarre or counterintuitive,
  
  Hmmm, then why do we have evidence 'thrown out' that doesn't fit the popular theories?
  
  >and the most ruthlessly skeptical scrutiny of all ideas, old and new. This is how deep truths are separated from deep nonsense.
  
  Really, if this is so then you must have some proof, right?
  
  >Science requires the most vigorous and uncompromising skepticism, because the vast majority of ideas are simply wrong, and the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff is by critical experiment and analysis.
  
  Amen!
  
  >If you are open to the point of gullibility and have no skeptical sense, then you cannot distinguish promising ideas from the worthless ones.
  
  That goes without saying, but who sits in judgment to decide this?
  
  >Uncritically accepting every notion,idea, or hypothesis is tantamount to knowing nothing.
  
  No duh
  
  >When ideas contradict one another, only through skeptical scrutiny can we decide among them.
  
  And your point is?
  
  "Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone; but if they argue without reason (which, in order to be consistent with themselves they must do), they are out of reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument."_Ethan Allen
  
  That and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee in some places.
  Rex
• 
  49

  Jesus as Manager and Founder of Christianity

  by jgnat in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  as a manager, i've used jesus as a model and his example has served me well.

  i approach my job as a servant 1 , and the people under me are the ones i work for.

  i follow the foot-washing principle2.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shining One

  Where does the 'law of love' lead you when Jesus told us that all of the law and prophets would be fulfilled? If a 'Christian' does not accept the AUTHORITY of scripture then where is the basis to apply the law of love?
  Rex
• 
  151

  Questions for Jgnat

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  jgnat, .

  you had some points that i missed in a previous thread.

  here are my answers to your charges.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shining One

  >Boy, I don't know how much clearer I can be. I don't say that I deny the Scriptures, only that it is wrong to worship them as god, or to believe them infallible.
  
  How have I said that we should 'worship scripture as God'?
  
  >Am I denying the commands of Christ, now? Which ones?
  
  Christ said that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. You have declared scripture to be so unreliable that you can judge what scripture to obey and what to ignore. Therefore, you are denying a basic command of Christ and of scripture THAT HE WROTE AS GOD!
  
  What do you use as a guideline to make YOUR own interpretation of God's word?
  
  Why do you deny the very faith statement of your own church?
  
  Who are you to declare any scripture as unbelievable and unreliable (not infallible)?
  
  Rex
• 
  49

  God and Science

  by Shining One in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  now here is an interesting take on all things..... .

  .

  http://www.crosscurrents.org/godand.htm

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Shining One

  I am glad you liked the link, Perry.
  Rex