Replies

Certain other posters say it better. "Science isn't interested in truth", they correctly say. Science is only interested in the philosophy of naturalism.

Now, if naturalism is not true but is purely philosophical; then those 'material explanations' are counter-intuitive because they are wrong.

I suppose its my posts you are misrepresenting, as usual. Here is what science says about truth (and TRVTH):

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.

Note, it is not me saying that. That definition is from a CalTech website.

And I don't know why you creationists are so worried about science and the assumption of naturalism. If you think you can get better results using some other method, well go do it! Don't complain to us because our results contradict your a priori beliefs. If you want to disprove science and the assumptions it uses quit complaining and do some research. Or whatever it is you do.

"Note, it is not me saying that. That definition is from a CalTech website."

Hey, that's great. Then is is more than just your opinion, the most worshipful CalTech says that science is not interested in truth.

"And I don't know why you creationists are so worried about science and the assumption of naturalism. If you think you can get better results using some other method, well go do it! Don't complain to us because our results contradict your a priori beliefs. If you want to disprove science and the assumptions it uses quit complaining and do some research. Or whatever it is you do."

Again, we see the fallacy of equivocation, this time from Coyoteman. Technology is equated to the philosophy of naturalism when there is no rational reason for doing so.

Philosophical naturalism does not logically follow from the existence of natural physical laws, nor does the existence of natural physical laws mean that materialism is the limit of reality.

It takes a fantastic deficiency in critical-thinking ability to even make such a statement, much less believe it.