Posted on 02/01/2006 6:32:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry
;^)
Are you pulling rank, Suh? Highly irregular, you know.
Why did you put that in quotes Elsie? I don't believe I said that.
But it's true that everyone is ignorant on something. And the writers of the Bible were ignorant about the history of the earth and it's species. That's just a fact.
"No miracles. Never was and never will be a miracle. Miracles are for morons. The Church's claims about miracles are all frauds."
HMmmm...
Kinda undercuts the whole of the Scriptures; eh?
Tilting at strawmen now, Elsie?
Only when a non-scientist lectures me on what science is. They accuse us of arrogance, but what's more arrogant than a neophyte lecturing a specialist on what the specialist does for a living?
It's not just science either. We had no less than two non-lawyer creationists yesterday lecturing a working lawyer about precedent.
Most scientists who believe evolution os the best explantion for the diversification of species are probably not Christian because there are probably more Indians and Chinese in the group that Europeans and Americans.
Nevertheless, as scientists they probably neither believe nor disbelieve in miracles.
That's bascially what scientists do ... look for evidence and evaluate it.
Why is a systematic study of miracle claims not science? Is it because there is no experimental group and control group? No lab conditions?
That's not really the problem. The problem is that miracles are not repeatable. They are not physical. They have never been seen or measured by an objective source.
What about paleontology? What experiments do they perform? I believe that paleontologists are scientists in good standing.
Paleontolgists deal with physical evidence. Hardly the same thing at all.
To me, any systematic study can be called science
And that's the problem. ID is no more "science" than astrology, as Behe admitted. But you would like to redefine the word to accept the meaning you want, not the actual meaning.
I guess I'm going to check out for awhile. 15" of white fluffy stuff is calling and if I wait for the teenager to get around to it, it'll be next year. Besides he's in school and needs all the time there he can get. If I wait to after school we could be looking at more than 2 feet and they'll have to send in the St. Bernards.
Many thousands of accounts of miracles are a form of evidence.
Not a form of physical evidence.
Not a form or particularly reliable evidence, either. Ask any lawyer - eyewitness testimony is the least reliable. People frequently see what they want to see. The eye is easily fooled.
The reason has to do with economics.
Try writing a grant proposal for studies on telepathy. Outside of the army (so-called synthetic telepathy), there's not a whole lot of funding available.
In addition, most reported episodes of telepathy are sporadic and often under life and death stress. The only protocols I am aware of are from Duke and they seem to omit some of the requirements for making it studiable.
As for miracles ... they are studied. The Catholic church requires certified miracles for declaring a saint.
There are the miraculous cures that are among the most frequent documented miracles currently used for declaring sainthood.
They are ususally backed by medical documentation, however a shortcoming is such possible in the spontateous regressions in cancer which have been inadequately studied.
The regressions are real but some possible causes have yet to be eliminated, most significantly fevers which have been noted but not seriously studied to any degee.
Double blind experiments attempting to detect telepathy have been done, and not infrequently. To date I know of no positive, repeatable results that have not been attributable to a problem with the experiment itself. If there have been, then someone needs to twist Randi's arm and get him to pay out on his bet.
There is nothing at all wrong with applying scientific experimentation and investigation to extraordinary claims, just don't be surprised when the process yields mundane causes and explanations.
Because it's been thoroughly discredited, scores of times. Because it conflicts with known physical laws. Because its practiced by charlatans and fortune-tellers, and believed only by nutjobs.
But thanks for being one more instance in support of my general observation that most creationists have other loony beliefs besides creationism.
Surprising, isn't it? I mean, if you could determine what the CEO of Google was thinking, you could be rich. And look at the oppotunities in the extrasensory perception field.
That's Seattle Weekly, the alternative rag.
Sheesh, where are you? Here in SE Nebraska, we've had two inches this whole winter. The lakes are completely open - not even a hint of ice - and the snowdrops are in flower.
I live in Florida. What is this "snow" of which you speak?
In Florida, it goes in your nose.
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.