Posted on 06/08/2005 1:55:46 PM PDT by mlc9852
But, of course, the real point of my "You have to do research before you can mess it up," supposedly being answered by your text above, is that creation science "research" would be an oxymoron if it weren't for the activity known as "quote mining," the process of creatively mosaicing a lie from carefully selected tiles of truth.
But the Quote-Miner gets quote-mined: here's Henry Morris admitting how Creation Science Research is done.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1410029/posts?page=20#20, a good catch by PatrickHenry.
I assume the average lurker is capable of reading for themselves. Why would you care which excerpt I posted?
Physics is all math these days, and so is removed from our humanness and will never be more than mechanical so long as it continues to be all math. Interesting, maybe, that one of the greatest solutions to the cosmology puzzle was plucked from thin air rather than derived, something that annoys many physicists but should not surprise Goedelians.
::::sarcasm off::::
It's a search all right, but not necessarily for the truth. Often the search is to further their own career.
You wrote:"Physics is all math these days, and so is removed from our humanness and will never be more than mechanical so long as it continues to be all math. Interesting, maybe, that one of the greatest solutions to the cosmology puzzle was plucked from thin air rather than derived, something that annoys many physicists but should not surprise Goedelians."
The Bible says something interesting:"In the Latter days, I(God) will pour our out my spirit upon all flesh, and the old men will dream dreams,the young men will see visions and the women will prophesy" Notice it doesn't say"certain select fundamentalists". It says "all flesh"!
To be human is to be subject to "blind leaps of logic and inspiration" that may seem at first scientifically unsupportable but later are born out by research. How much is even the secular scientist subject to inspirations that seem to arise from the subtle edges of consciousness and dreams that science is hesitant to explore....where perhaps a more quiet voice of concern and love speaks urgently and pleadingly for men to "Come Home!"
Certainly much has been made of early Sci fi writers abilities such as HG Wells and Jules Verne to be able to forecast amazing scientific innovatoions decades before the science could even begin to deal with the dynamics that would lead to such innovations...to "pluck" out of the air as it were our future. Were they not, secular minded though they were, catching a more subtle wave of divine thinking and SHAPING perhaps? Articles have been written complaining that Sci fi writers and thinkers are actually unduly influencing the nature of science, driving the data and creating self-fullfilling prophecies that may be distorting the scientific method!(Ironically making science guilty of using A Priori biases in a way that the Creationists are also accused of)
Science of course can not speak as to the possibility or the non-existence of the divine, it can only deal with "what is strictly before its eyes"...
Ahhh but the dreams....!
Intuition, not blind but unspeakable and certainly unprovable within predicate logic. I would question whether it should be thought of as being subject to [as if a fit] or constituting our fundamental nature. Intuition is not taken as a wild guess, but is what our mind makes of the various aspects of what the senses perceive.
I stand by my statement...I am not against the scientific method !
I simply reject the hypocrisy of those so "called" scientists who criticise the creationists of resorting to unscientific A Priori Biases when those same scientists have not dealt with their own unscientific A Priori biases!
Where dishonesty occurs in not admitting to the hidden agendas that drive the main agenda in a man...whether creationist or secularist scientist...Reason declares that a pox should be placed on that man's house!
The "method?" Looks like making a new statement, not standing my the old one. Old statement:
That's too bad because while I have problems with evolution per se...I am not generally anti-science.
This one says you have no problem with most of the acquired content of science, not just the "method." Supposedly, the problem is just with something called "evolution." As I pointed out, however, "evolution" is a term most readers will understand as Darwinian/biological evolution: common descent with variation and natural selection operating over many generations. When a creationist says what you said, however, the amount of science being rejected is far greater than the narrow understanding of the term implies. Furthermore, the equivocation on the word "evolution" gives the creationist cover as being less anti-science than he really is.
Your new statement looks like a confirmation of my earlier suspicions. No rush to say, "No! I accept radiometric dating, even when it supports conventional interpretations of the geologic column and transitional fossils! I accept paleontology! I accept geology! I accept the age of the Earth!"
Creationists spend no time defending whatever crazy model they support, a lot of time attacking evolution, and often a lot of time denying who they are and what they are doing.
This should not be necessary if everything were on the up and up. First of all, get a horse to put in the race. That would be a defensible theory. Second, realize that attacking any other theory doesn't give you a defensible theory. Third, if you had a theory that made any sense against real-world evidence you wouldn't need to do this "Don't dismiss me as a nutcase!" dance because you wouldn't then be a nutcase for believing your theory against all evidence.
Where dishonesty occurs in not admitting to the hidden agendas that drive the main agenda in a man...
You took out one irony meter earlier. I'm splashing water on the replacement.
... whether creationist or secularist scientist...
That's close, anyway. But the side that's following the real-world evidence does not have to apologize for insisting on following the same in questions of science.
Furthermore, unfortunately, you preceded that paragraph with this one:
I simply reject the hypocrisy of those so "called" scientists who criticise the creationists of resorting to unscientific A Priori Biases when those same scientists have not dealt with their own unscientific A Priori biases!
You are rejecting 150 years worth of evidence because you don't like the seeming "hypocrisy" of some criticisms of creationists? That's the reason? That's the sequence of events?
I suggest you rethink this. It sounds kind of illogical; you're confessing to a considerable fallacy if true. However, I wonder if you didn't reject evolution and accept creation first, THEN decide the scientists were hypocritical etc. etc. etc. That strikes me as far more likely. First you join the Holy War, THEN you start thinking like a Holy Warrior nutcase.
Because, the entire article is not nearly as anti-science as the tiny part you posted. This, of course, will lead to false conclusions on the part of people who only read your excerpt. Knowing your position on the subject, however, I can't help but believe you planned it that way.
Junior, you give me way too much credit for deceitfulness. I thought it was an interesting article. And I doubt anyone is surprised by what the article says. And again, anyone who wanted to easily read the entire article.
Oh now you are expanding the conversation so that you are accusing Creationists of advocating Holy War and Jihad and are the bane of all free thought...
I was suggesting that (and as the posted article suggests) that those of the realm of science are not free of dishonesty and denial that some creationists are accused of and then you launch into Holy War Jibberish...
Are you off your anti-psychotic meds or what? Are you really that paranoid?
"but is what our mind makes of the various aspects of what the senses perceive"
Ahh but now you come back to the point I was trying to make; that of the A Priori biases that make up the mind as it tries to categorize sense perceptions into meaningful data and knowledge...these biases can "color" our conclusions.
No human is ultimately free of those Biases though we can learn to isolate those biases in our own thinking when attempting objectivity in our examinings. The secular Scientist who scoffs at the religious scientist who attempts to offer an alternate view in a plausible scientific manner needs to examine himself as to why he is scoffing? If the religious scientist has cut corners and shaded data to fit a religious view...then yes he should be taken to task.
If the religious scientist is being scoffed at simply because of his Godly world view and his work ignored, inspite of the scientist's vigourous scientific work which cuts no corners and can be repeatedly demonstrated, well then it seems that the secular scientist is guilty of Bias.
The concept of the existence of God is a scientific tautology as you know, a concept of which, science can neither say yay or nay! When a secular minded scientist( who may be atheistic or agnostic at best) decides that a Christian scientist can not be trusted to turn in quality work SIMPLY BECAUSE he has Godly world view, he has decided based on his own emotionalism and biases against religion, not by any scientific basis....there-fore he violates the very scientific method he claims to cherish!
Let me emphasize that I acknowledge that some creationists have practised bad science which gives a bad name to those who may have a more legitimate and rigourous scientific approach who are working in that field. But to say that the whole field of Creation and ID research is illegitimate science belies a bias against the tautologous.
Science can't speak for the veracity the tautologous as the tautologous are not falsifiable, yet it can't speak against this veracity either. Many secular scientists seem to have forgotten this latter point!
Of course. It's hard to pinpoint exactly what is a priori in intuition, but one man's junkpile is another man's goldmine. Pick an example. At one time electric attraction was action at a distance. Then one man--no math!--saw electric fields and now we all see electric fields. What is a priori there?
I've often wondered about what Tesla was smoking when he came up with the most amazing inventions and innovations of his era...his claims of having invented a directed energy beam for example(the secrets of which seem to be lost or suppressed, more likely)....
Don't know much about Tesla besides the usual. He holds, or his name is on, many of the basic electric patents. His generators at Niagara are still in operation. I'm sure that some of his conjectures were fruitless, its very common for creative people to have a lot of ideas, some of which are totally off the wall. His intuitions of electrical phenomena were radical in his day.
I like what Proverbs says when it says "There is nothing new under the sun." Knowledge always seems to be uncovered and rediscovered...necessity being the birthing mother of invention.
I think what lies just beyond science is a vast reservoir of knowledge and wisdom (and I don't mean new agism or weird earth shamanistic crap) that science in its current closed method of inquiry has lost the ability to tap. For example...the dreams of two brothers who owned a bicycle shop in Ohio, wishing to fly....
For example, Goedel demonstrated that per general relativity time travel is possible and therefore time is an illusion. Yet, we see time, think in terms of time, and don't have a clue what to do about it.
Then perhaps it is time we learn to think timelessly(not carelessly in an entropic manner)and beyond the selfish confines of our human selves...indeed such thinking may lead to a rebirth of our American civilization!
Two things, one on a current thread:
1. One of two: reincarnation: if time is an illusion, then reincarnations might not be serial, but parallel. Other lives, now, all of them.
2. Two of two: Merica is an old name for Venus the Evening Star. The Western Star, same star as the one over Bethlehem.
3. Three of two: One and two are total speculations for entertainment purposes only.
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.