Posted on 01/24/2009 5:28:02 AM PST by Ethan Clive Osgoode
By keeping *truth* in a state of flux and by refusing to recognize truth outside the framework that they have established, they immediately try to deprive their opponents of any ability that they have in telling the scientist/atheist/evolutionist that they are wrong.
If there is no right, there is no wrong.
If there is no truth, there are no lies and there is no error.
If there are no absolutes, than theories are much more easily tweaked and modified to be made more accurate instead of being discarded as wrong.
Except that if there’s no standard to which to compare something to, there’s no way to determine if something is more or less accurate.
Etymology of rational: Middle English racional, from Anglo-French racionel, from Latin rationalis, from ration-, ratio
Definition of ratio: 1 a: the indicated quotient of two mathematical expressions b: the relationship in quantity, amount, or size between two or more things : proportion
Etymology of ratio: Latin, computation, reason
Etymology of reason: Middle English resoun, from Anglo-French raisun, from Latin ration-, ratio reason, computation, from reri to calculate, think; probably akin to Gothic rathjo account, explanation
Under "methodological naturalism" - an objective expression can be no more than a reduction of "all that there is", i.e. the principle excludes any thing not governed by physical laws, physical causation and physical constants - which are ironically, not physical themselves.
Therefore, I find the principle of methodological naturalism to be irrational.
Touche’
With one post you have just disproved everything in science and about science from Newton to the present.
And to think we were there, in this internet chat room, when history was made!
(Do you think they will televise the Nobel award ceremony live?)
The ceremony will be a funeral service for Darwinism. And the “history” made will be how a rotten tree fell under the weight of its own rotten fruit.
The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
Darwin's “tree” is going over.
Paul was talking about the religious beliefs of the Gnostics, not the subject of science as it is understood today.
A difference without distinction what with the way scientists exclude God from any consideration.
If they’re not outright atheists, they disallow any *interference* from Him. For all practical purposes the best a scientist can do as a scientist is claim that they do not know about Him.
“Evolution myths: The theory is wrong because the Bible is ‘inerrant’
18:00 16 April 2008 by Michael Le Page
This argument is undermined by the hundreds of errors and inaccuracies and contradictions found in Bible. It is anything but “inerrant”.
A few creationists are honest enough to admit that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution is irrelevant as far as they are concerned: as it contradicts the “Word of God”, it simply has to be wrong.
Some Christians regard the text of the Bible as literally true or, to use their term, as “inerrant”. If people reject evolution on this basis, it is only fair to ask whether this belief stands up.
Whichever translation of the Bible you look at it is not hard to find errors. The texts are full of internal contradictions as well as historical and scientific inaccuracies.
There are so many examples it is hard to know where to start. Take its cosmology: according to the Bible, the earth is flat and immovable, the moon emits its own light, the sky is solid and the stars can be shaken from the sky by earthquakes.
Its mathematics is also poor. How many sons do you count: “The sons of Shemaiah: Huttush, Igal, Bariah, Neriah, and Shaphat, six” (I Chronicles 3:22). Such errors are common. The value of pi is given as 3, even though many other cultures had already worked it out with greater precision.”
This is just first part of the article. It shows a deliberate obtuseness as well as deception, as in the quote of 1 Chron. 3:22.
Given that the advice of the Scriptures is intended for Christians of all times it would apply to anything under that term of “false knowledge” I’d think.
From chicken teeth to ring species, false (gnosis)knowledge finds a home in science too.
Because there's really no way to keep false knowledge out of science, especially with the *it's the best we've got* mentality. That allows for the acceptance of a lot of false knowledge until *something better* comes along.
In light of the fact that science only deals with the physical subset of reality, it can never attain real knowledge. It'll always be stuck making the best assumptions it can with the incomplete data it collects.
Titus 3:12 When I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter thereHow's that working out for you?
Then I would will very skeptical of any pronouncement called “scientific fact”.
Color me slow, I don’t understand... what?
OK, I got that.... I'm saying in the Bible generally, and the letters of Paul specifically, there may be some stuff that had a clear specific meaning to the actual recipient, at the time, but has no lasting subtext.
Titus 3:12 When I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, for I have decided to spend the winter there
How's that working out for you?
I'm sure if the Apostle Paul requested that c-y-c come to him, he would.
LOLOL!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.