Scientists find missing link between whale and its closest relative, the hippo

UC Berkeley News ^ | 24 January 2005 | Robert Sanders, Media Relations

[houeto]

Science does not operate outside the framework of naturalism.

Agreed.

Science without naturalism is called useless philosophy.

Nope.

Sometimes the scientist can come to the conclusion, as shubi the minister of the Gospel has, that despite the exhaustion of naturalism divine intervention exists.

[houeto]

Anyone who does accept supernatural explanations, as opposed to seeking naturalistic explanations, is most certainly not a scientist.

Tell that to the myiad of scientists here that also believe in some type of deity.

Remember, Darwin (evolution) was/is into species, not the origin of life.

[houeto]

Anyone who does accept supernatural explanations, as opposed to seeking naturalistic explanations, is most certainly not a scientist.

Whether scientists believe in the supernatural or not means nothing.

Wow, two sentences back to back and you espouse two opposite ideas. Good work.

[King Prout]

no, not quite.
one can believe in the existence of things/forces/beings outside of the material sidereal universe without having to feel compelled to ascribe supernatural causes to natural phenomena.

[houeto]

There is a difference between believing in miracles and taking as fact utter nonsense extracted from an early pagan myth.

As an extremely important question: "What written sources do you use to separate the 'pagan myth' of the flood from the truth of the death and resurrection?"

[Junior]

Actually, if you read closer, those two ideas are not contradictory. One is about accepting supernatural explanations, and the other is about believing in the supernatural. One can hold the view that the supernatural exists without believing it to be the cause of any phenomenon.

[houeto]

The following link contains material on gravity. Gravity is a theory, not a fact, regarding a force that cannot be directly seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.

Thank you.

[houeto]

I'm gonna go Irish on ye: why would I bother to force myself to have faith in a god that never shows himself?

As a Texan I'll tell ya, ye ain't gotta. It is free will.

FReegards.

[houeto]

Do you consider what is described above to be a fair test?

Yes.

[houeto]

You know, I feel like a retard, but I can't figure out how to post a picture here.

Don't. Everytime I do it I have to go to the FR html step guide to make it right. HTML ain't my thing and never will be.

[King Prout]

indeed?

exactly how do you define "fair"?

Please, define your usage of fair, and then clearly apply all variants of your definition to the trial as posted.

this promises to be fascinating.

[houeto]

Science has a built-in cross-checking system that minimizes any mistakes.

Very true.

[houeto]

No, believing in a Creator is not the same as a creationist who is a literalist and fundamentalist nutcase.

That is not everyone's definition.

[houeto]

one can believe in the existence of things/forces/beings outside of the material sidereal universe without having to feel compelled to ascribe supernatural causes to natural phenomena.

Yes, but that is somewhat different than believing in an Almighty God that has the power over human souls.

[houeto]

Actually, if you read closer, those two ideas are not contradictory.

Yes, they are.

[puppets]

I bet the first whale that jumped on the beach and suddenly started breathing air only did so to get away from all of his pals and their cruel jokes about his freakish half hippo appearance Suddently started breathing air? Ok, what was the whale breathing before he jumped onto land?

Evolution has too much fossil evidence to be denied, and its an idiotic exercise anyway. All enlightened religions have easily balanced Biblical faith with scientific fact. Only the looniest literalist still whinges about Evolution somehow hurting their weak hold on their belief in God and Creation.

[houeto]

I will not let post #1151 go undone. That would not be "fair". I must leave for now.. Hope to 'see' you brothers in the morning.

FReegards.

[King Prout]

no, not at all. is a soul material?

years ago, I made a study of the human characteristics ascribed by the devout to the existence of the soul.

each and every one of those characteristics has been shown to be a result of the structural and chemical properties of the central nervous system.

so far, there is no material evidence of souls.
if they exist, and a supernatural agency has dominion over them, big deal - has nothing to do with the scientific explanation of observable and measurable natural phenomena.

[King Prout]

please do answer. I am in all earnest, no derision at all, when I say this shall be fascinating.

[Dawsonville_Doc]

You realize, of course, that KP had that little puzzle worked out even before I met him... over 16 years ago. The logic is quite sound, I assure you. Your only escape is through a discourse explaining the nature of faith...