[freedumb2003]

More supernatural answers to natural issues.

Jeeze, how many paragraphs do you need to exhibit your complete misunderstanding of science? You made yourself clear: “science includes the supernatural.”

BroJoeK — need we go deeper? I don’t think we need a point by point refutation when the underlying thesis is so flawed as to render subsequent arguments glitter on a parade float.

Yes, said I would say out of it but the “supernatural is science” comment could not be left left untouched by any Conservative who deals in truth and not Harry Potter level fantasies.

Always cut to the core. It saves time and keystrokes.

[mdmathis6]

““supernatural is science” comment could not be left left untouched by any Conservative who deals in truth “

Yet our constitution that every Conservative loves includes the supernatural like Adams said...”Because we have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

When the scientific method can be employed to produce morally sane and just people without resort to the tautology of God and religion(as current worshippers of the scientific method has faddishly described them), then science may have found something truly useful other than experiments that simply explain the grand entropy of the universe. Otherwise, everyone will just have to keep putting on their fig leaves and keep borrowing ideas from the tautologous nouminal LOGOS to try to restore societies every time they go totally entropic; as they have been want to do for as long as humans have been around to employ the term “I Am...” (as a means of self description of individually experienced sentience!)

The Burning Bush gave away the whole secret as to what fashion man was made in God’s image...it wasn’t because we were bipeds....

[reasonisfaith]

You mean when nature had a beginning?

And therefore, as a finite entity, is not all-encompassing, but is necessarily encompassed by something other than itself?

Such that logical coherence mandates that the broad acceptance of the Big Bang by mainstream science necessarily comes with an acceptance of the supernatural?

[BroJoeK]

freedumb2003: "BroJoeK — need we go deeper?
I don’t think we need a point by point refutation when the underlying thesis is so flawed as to render subsequent arguments glitter on a parade float."

Well... I've mentioned here a metaphorical Intelligent Design "Denier University" where young theurgists can learn their... ahem... trade craft.
At Denier University's Matriculated Body of Students (aka, "the D.U.M.B.S.") they are, I suspect, taught Kalamata's ideas as "gospel truth", and it's what they wish to teach, complete with insults & whining, in public schools too.

Of course I'm no expert in any of the fields we cover here and unlike Kalamata don't have "thousands of books" I can quote mine with word searches.
Also, my time is limited -- so long as my health stays good I can be of service elsewhere and am frequently called.

On the other hand, I do have education, books and life experience in every related field, and can google up online encyclopedias as well as the next guy.
So, for example, when Kalamata throws out names like Laurence Sloss and cratonic sequences, I can both remember back to geology class and look it up whenever memory fails me.
And I do have some time, though clearly not nearly as much as Kalamata & company.

Anyway, if you wonder what I'm doing there, then think of all the kids at Denier University being bullied & insulted by people like Kalamata into thinking that natural science is just another religious cult that can be denied & defeated by tactics of alleged "biblical science".

freedumb2003: "Yes, said I would say out of it but the “supernatural is science” comment could not be left left untouched by any Conservative who deals in truth and not Harry Potter level fantasies."

I'm taking Kalamata's posts on one by one, so have not yet reached his "supernatural is science" comment.
Previously he claimed that "God is natural", leaning on traditional trinitarian theology which proclaims Christ is both "fully human and fully God".
I responded by showing that even while "fully human", Jesus had supernatural powers to perform miracles over both human and natural realms.
I also noted that Kalamata's high school text book, "Of Pandas and People" does admit that "Intelligent Design" appeals to supernatural forces.

Indeed, that is the basis on which Judge Jones in 2006 declared ID to be "not science" and threw it out of Dover Area public schools.

[Kalamata]

freedumb2003 to Kalamata; BroJoeK; freedumb2003; bwest; reasonisfaith; Riley; mdmathis6

>>freeDUMB2003 said, "More supernatural answers to natural issues."

What is not supernatural about nature? Isaac Newton saw nature as a supernatural creation:

"the parity of reason must take place in the celestial spaces above the earth's atmosphere; in which spaces, where there is no air to resist their motions, all bodies will move with the greatest freedom; and the planets and comets will constantly pursue their revolutions in or bits given in kind and position, according to the laws above explained; but though these bodies may, indeed, persevere in their orbits by the mere laws of gravity, yet they could by no means have at first derived the regular position of the orbits themselves from those laws... This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." [Isaac Newton, "Newton's Principia: the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." Daniel Adee, 1846, Book III, p.501]

I realize there are many who think they are smarter than God. I am not one of them.

*****************

>>freeDUMB2003 said, "Jeeze, how many paragraphs do you need to exhibit your complete misunderstanding of science? You made yourself clear: “science includes the supernatural.”

You don't have to convince us you are dumb.

*****************

>>freeDUMB2003 said, "BroJoeK — need we go deeper? I don’t think we need a point by point refutation when the underlying thesis is so flawed as to render subsequent arguments glitter on a parade float."

I assume by "the underlying thesis" you are referring to my thesis that:

"God created the heaven, earth and all its hosts in 6 days; God created man from the dust of the ground on the 6th day; and, later, man, along with all flesh, became so corrupted that God sent a global flood."

There is nothing flawed about that thesis, dumb. Your thesis, which is appropriately named "dumb luck," is not only flawed, but silly.

*****************

>>freeDUMB2003 said, "Yes, said I would say out of it but the “supernatural is science” comment could not be left left untouched by any Conservative who deals in truth and not Harry Potter level fantasies."

Gibberish.

*****************

>>freeDUMB2003 said, "Always cut to the core. It saves time and keystrokes."

It would help this thread if you saved all of your keystrokes.

Mr Kalamata