Posted on 05/11/2017 2:30:23 PM PDT by fishtank
>>But make no mistake. Supra. Not Extra.<<
Your are begging the question. There isn’t a hierarchy or a taxonomy of studies.
Science and philosophy (and art and other studies) are adjacent, each in their own domain.
Your statement itself belongs in the philosophy realm.
I think the ultimate question that separates the various parties to the debate is:
Were Adam and Eve real people? Evolved or specially created? Innocent as created? If not, what was the nature of the fall into sin? And then, what is the nature of redemption? And what is the Bible all about if not the account of Creation, Fall, and Redemption?
>>My point was that most evolutionists are not open to the mere thought of intelligent design so they rabidly go against anyone and all that question their beliefs.<<
The problem with ID is not that it is opposition science. The problem is it is not science at all. It is religion.
bkmk
Peter spoke of an old Earth. What some young Earthers miss is that there was life prior to Genesis 1:2, not man who was created later in Genesis, but plenty of other creatures as old fossil records show. We know satan ruined the Earth when he was cast out of heaven so Genesis 1:2 was not the literal beginning. The bible really does provide answers when it’s researched thoroughly.
“This is what distinguishes sciences from technologies. We have a pretty exacting rule for technologies. It’s gotta work or else it’s kaput. Sciences can be about things that almost work, but not quite, because we’re still looking for the final pieces.”
I agree with that...... science sometimes veers off into philosophy, which it shouldn’t. Technology doesn’t do that.
Censorship to me shows fear. Reminds me of the climate change debate, and how people want to shut down anybody who disagrees.
Yep.
I vividly recall my first biology instructor at university (as a freshman biology and engineering double major):
“Given time and chance, we are confident that...”
He used that phrase whenever an anomaly in his cherished pseudo-theory reared its ugly head, asserting that the concept of evolution would be vindicated in the long run.
Those are the words of faith, not science.
Evolution is not a cohesive and testable scientific theory: It is a patchwork quilt of non-replicable hypotheses; whenever an anomaly arises, a new patch is sewn in to explain it away.
It is not subjected to anywhere near the same objective, impartial rigor that many other theories - real or feigned - are.
To suggest that there is not a common aura of religious fervor - or fanaticism - in the so-called scientific community about this particular thing is disingenuous at best.
I garnered multiple awards in the physical sciences as well as mathematics; I demonstrated repeatedly that I actually understood the scientific method. I am, by the bye, a member of Mensa, Intertel, and TOPS. Ignorant I ain’t.
Like the oft-cited comment about pornography: I know science when I see it. When I look at all these vaunted secular leftists drooling over the supposed wonders of their revered excuse for not considering a Creator, I ain’t seein’ it.
P.S. The contraction, ain’t, is entirely grammatically correct for the first-person, present-tense form of the verb, to be.
What is perplexing to me is that true evolution implies a smooth continuous transition of specie development, there should not be millions of years of one species(a countable state) followed by millions of years of the next follow on species(another different countable state). The evolutionists use a discrete systems model to describe evolution should be an analog system which is counter intuitive!!!
A discrete system is a system with a countable number of states. Discrete systems may be contrasted with continuous systems, which may also be called analog systems. A final discrete system is often modeled with a directed graph and is analyzed for correctness and complexity according to computational theory. Because discrete systems have a countable number of states, they may be described in precise mathematical models.
Hope and pray he wins his lawsuit.
Ah, the objectivity of physics buttressed by mathematics.
Thank God for them both!
I am not going to reenact the CREVO wars here.
I have made my points, whether you like or agree with them.
Good evening?night.
Scoffers gonna scoff...
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html
Great post.
Why should God be excluded from science?
At best. , he is a geologist pretender
A geologist is a scientist who studies the solid and liquid matter that constitutes the Earth as well as the processes that shape it.
Are you saying that a geologist cannot believe in or have faith in a Creator?
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.