[mdmathis6]

“As you know, falsification is a key element of the scientific method.”

To be sure by observation and limited experimentation but there will always be an epistemological gap between knowledge of an object and the object itself. We are all stuck in the end between the tension points of reason and faith.

The tautological arguments that you are accusing Mr. Kalamata of foisting, true, can’t be rationalized and or falsified(proven empirically true!) by means of reason or the scientific method but they can’t be said to be non-rational or non-falsifiable(proven empirically false). Especially, since you espouse a type of hybrid creationistic-darwinistic theology to bash him over the head with. Your arguments, too, are tautological in nature and can’t be supported by the scientific method as you hold to the existence of a creator being!

Since you both already state you both believe in a Creator Being, something the scientific method in it’s basic granular practice cannot support due to the tautological nature of the concept, scientifically speaking, you too BWEST have no firm ground to stand on if you wish to continue to cite the scientific method as an ally.

It is a sign of prideful pre-bias, and not faithful to reason or the scientific method to suggest that a line of reasoning that cannot be immediately falsified or verified must be automatically disregarded as “not true”!( and indeed have attached to such reasoning very bogoted scorn and ridicule and even leading to the destruction of one’s life’s work, reputation and character, even if such a person so ostracized has done many wonderful works of science and technology, ie.E. Forrest Mimms)

Science can’t answer the question of the numbers of angels on a pin but it can’t say that it never happens, that such never exist. It can’t say such a concept is true or false; only the biases fueled by sociopathic caustic skepticism would lead such a person to arbitrarily pronounce such beliefs as “empirically false” while belittling the faith of another Christian as you did with Mr. Kalamata!

[bwest]

Read a bit more closely. On at least one occasion, probably more, I said that I have the utmost respect for those whose faith runs contrary to scientific findings. I include YECs, Biblical literalists, etc. in this category. However, inventing a phony science to prove the veracity of their faithful conclusions is a sign of weakness of faith.

Those who choose to defend their faith-borne beliefs by touting the findings of “Creationism” necessarily subject themselves to the rigors of scientific method.

If that’s what you consider belittling of faith, then so be it.

I’m still right. I’m still a Christian.

By the way, you do know that ToE does not address the origins of life, right?

[Kalamata]

>>mdmathis6, you said, "Science can't answer the question of the numbers of angels on a pin but it can't say that it never happens, that such never exist. It can't say such a concept is true or false; only the biases fueled by sociopathic caustic skepticism would lead such a person to arbitrarily pronounce such beliefs as 'empirically false' while belittling the faith of another Christian as you did with Mr. Kalamata!"

Perhaps you entered the conversation a little late to realize that I am merely a counter-puncher. This is bwest from an earlier post to me:

"Blind adherence to creationism in the face of real scientific observation is rationalization, not science. It is practiced by those of weak faith."

I assumed it was time to take off the gloves.

Cheers.

Mr. Kalamata