In his post #693, Kalamata again detours into a lengthy off-topic explanation of his theological beliefs regarding natural science and "Biblical Science".
The heart of it seems to be a quote by Colin Patterson,
"Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Lecture by Colin Patterson."
American Museum of Natural History, Nov 5, 1981, p.3"
Iirc, I first heard that kind of talk in a Sophomore-year bull session, and I think the technical term for is actually "sophomoric solipsism" = "we can't know anything for sure, so everything is just an illusion".
Such talk is often used to undermine young people's traditional beliefs, making it entertaining here to notice Kalamata using solipsism against his own idea of "false religion" -- natural science.
The fact here is that science itself makes no claims regarding "ultimate truth" because it recognizes itself as just a model (think of a model ship) which, no matter how precisely accurate, is never the true ship itself.
Anyone who's studied science should understand such ontological basics.
Now, back to the Civil War. ![]()
>>BroJoeK wrote: "In his post #693, Kalamata again detours into a lengthy off-topic explanation of his theological beliefs regarding natural science and "Biblical Science".
Joey cross-posted this topic, from another thread, much earlier in this thread in a vain attempt to smear me; and now he accuses me of being off-topic when I respond. Like I said, Joey's posts are always deceitful.
****************
>>BroJoeK wrote: "The heart of it seems to be a quote by Colin Patterson, "Can You Tell Me Anything About Evolution? A Lecture by Colin Patterson." American Museum of Natural History, Nov 5, 1981, p.3" Iirc, I first heard that kind of talk in a Sophomore-year bull session, and I think the technical term for is actually "sophomoric solipsism" = "we can't know anything for sure, so everything is just an illusion"."
Patterson was dead serious, but Joey is too scientifically-illiterate to realize it. Other famous paleontologists have made similar statements (but, again, not for public consumption.) Yet, evolutionists continue to ram their junk science down our children's throats and brainwash them into believing it to be a fact. They simply cannot let a divine foot in the door, or they might lose their funding (and their power over the minds of our children):
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen." [Richard C. Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons: Review of Sagan's 'The Demon Haunted World'." New York Review of Books, 1997]
Richard Lewontin, the author of that piece, is a professor of genetics at Harvard University. If you read carefully, you can see that atheist-evolutionists (he is not alone) are willing to believe complete, abject nonsense over a Biblical solution, whether the Biblical solution makes sense, or not. For example, Noah's flood was accepted as a historical fact, until this slick, weasel of a lawyer, Charles Lyell came along:
"I am sure you may get into Q. R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the party are quite prepared for it. A bishop, Buckland ascertained (we suppose Sumner), gave Ure a dressing in the 'British Critic and Theological Review.' They see at last the mischief and scandal brought on them by Mosaic systems. Eerussac has done nothing but believe in the universal ocean up to the chalk period till lately. Prevost has done a little, but is a diluvialist, a rare thing in France." [Letter to Poulett Scrope, Esq., 9 Crown Office Row, Temple, June 14, 1830, in Charles Lyell, "Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell Vol I." John Murray, 1881, Chap. XI, p.268]
Evolutionary geology was, for all practical purposes, an invention of that lawyer (Darwin was a failed theologian.) The word diluvialist is a category of scientists who believe the earth's shape was formed during Noah's flood. I am a diluvialist.
Let us see how long it takes for Joey to respond to this post, and, again, accuse me of being off-topic.
Mr. Kalamata