Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Interpretation of Evidence Colored by "GodSenseless" worldview
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 74 (152137)
10-22-2004 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object
10-21-2004 8:01 PM


WILLOWTREE
This is narrow minded fascist repressive medieval religion, known today as scientism, the same business on the other side of the street, and you are a rank and file brainwashed member.
That is an uncalled for assertion. It added nothing to the discussion and is also totally unsupported.
You believe scientific methodologies are the ONLY avenue to determine truth.
Unless you can define what you mean by truth, that is a meaningless statement.
There are things that can best be answered by science. Some examples are
  • the age of the earth.
  • the age of the universe.
  • the age of fossils
  • whether or not some town was occuppied during a particular period.
  • who built the pyramids.
  • what the longest land meridian is.
  • stellar distances.
  • geography.
There are also things which science cannot adequately address. Some examples are
  • the existence of a GOD or Gods.
  • the non-existence of GOD or Gods.
  • morality.
  • ethics.
  • questions related to WHY something exists.
You do not seem to outline what it is YOU are addressing when you mention things such as truth. Before anyone can even debate such issues it will be necessary for you to define your terms.
It would be a good idea for you to return to the OP. There, Ned lays out some basic steps.
NosyNed writes:
I suggest that to support this claim WT should give a specific example where there is a big difference between two opposing points of view.
Then he can show the evidence that exists that both sides can agree on.
Then he can discuss the "scientific" ("god sense removed") interpretation. Following that he can show a different interpretation and show why the first interpretation is directly influenced by the "wrong" worldview.
So, can you give us one specific example. Then can you provide evidence that both sides can agree even exists. Finally, can you show how having a given worldview effects the interpretation of evidence.
So far, you have provided no evidence. You have cut & pasted assertions from Milton, but they are simply assertions. There is no evidence involved.
Can you pick, as a beginning point, one specific case?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-21-2004 8:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2004 12:03 AM jar has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 47 of 74 (152149)
10-22-2004 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by wj
10-22-2004 9:00 PM


Re: and the answer is ... 42?
postmodernism? so it may seem. or practical reality? this is what people do. you can't avoid doing it once you go beyond scientific knowledge, because the only frame of reference you have is your accumulated ideas about reality.
every experience you have had is remembered as an idea of that experience.
in a practical sense there is little difference between a person with a lifetime of experiences well tethered in a real world billions of years old and one created in the last second with all the memories as if they were the first person, the ultimate "god-did-it" scenario: they will behave the same.
and we are talking about concepts beyond testability and observation, where scientific methods fail to produce results because they cannot test the concepts.
this is an area willowtree wanted to get into. I wait.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by wj, posted 10-22-2004 9:00 PM wj has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 48 of 74 (153191)
10-26-2004 10:51 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
10-21-2004 8:08 PM


What other methods are there that are distinguishable from making shit up?
Darwinism.
Darwin actually stole his theory from some poor guy who was on a sick bed, this means the origins of Darwinism are fraud.
Darwinism was created because they wanted to rid God of being the Creator - the exact transgression which triggers God-sense removal in the book of Romans.
Show me the success of any methodology other than verifiable investigation of the natural world
I have already agreed that MN and RE are the best methodologies for determining natural materialistic issues.
My only complaint is when naturalists trespass out of their field of science and violate the alleged Divine neutrality clauses and assert Genesis/Bible to be untrue. What qualifications do you or any evo have in Divinity ?
The Bible itself says you are the products of God's wrath because you are atheists and all your purported scientific determinations are defective because of this fact IF they are offered against a Creator.
On the other hand, there was a time when religious methodology held sway in the West - that time period is called "The Dark Ages," and lasted a thousand years. Why do you think that might be? Why do you think that they did not have, for instance, telephones and airplanes in the Dark Ages, if the methodology they used was just as good as science?
The above blue box is almost unbelievable.
Atheists are responsible for the deaths and murder of 100's of millions of persons in the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc nations and China. In Albania, if you are not an atheist you are subject to death.
Nazi's fully embraced your ToE.
The Renaissance was produced by Protestant Reformation.
Of course, the retardation of the Dark Ages and the subsequent regaining of knowledge and progress competely supports the Biblical scenario unlike the evolutionary scenario which wants nothing to do with the genius of the ancients and their wonders.
Evolutionary scenario HAS to ignore and change history because its uninterupted ascent is smashed by the ultra intelligence of antiquity.
Lets remember the issue: Scientism - the BRANCH of science (atheistic) which has declared war on the God of the Bible. Scientism and its Darwinism will be a chapter in history books proving the truth of the Bible, that when persons reject the Creator they will embrace anything and everything to contradict Scripture in the name of truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 10-21-2004 8:08 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by jar, posted 10-26-2004 11:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 12:03 AM Cold Foreign Object has replied
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2004 8:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 49 of 74 (153192)
10-26-2004 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by coffee_addict
10-21-2004 8:15 PM


Re: Rational?
I'd like to see you use your faith or whatever that you think is a better than science to figure out how to solve the problem.
I never said theistic methodolgy is best to determine individual scientific issues.
I said science, when it intrudes and concludes against a Biblical claim is philosophising in the name of objective scientific interpretations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by coffee_addict, posted 10-21-2004 8:15 PM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 12:06 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 50 of 74 (153195)
10-26-2004 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by coffee_addict
10-21-2004 8:26 PM


Re: Different kinds of truth???
Lam is a stereotypical naturalist who thinks he is qualified to transfer his defective naturalist philosophy into theology.
Theology explains this to be what persons say who have had their God-sense stripped for rejecting God as the Creator - thus they prove the Bible true regardless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by coffee_addict, posted 10-21-2004 8:26 PM coffee_addict has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 51 of 74 (153198)
10-26-2004 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object
10-26-2004 10:51 PM


Try to stay on topic...
and please try to at least get your facts straight when you do once again wander off topic.
In Albania, if you are not an atheist you are subject to death.
Yet another incorrect assertion. Here is a link to the Albanian Orthodox Church.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-26-2004 10:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 52 of 74 (153199)
10-26-2004 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by AdminNosy
10-21-2004 8:29 PM


Re: Crack pot ideas
Willowtree, you were asked at the beginning of this thread and have been since asked to show how a different result could be achieved with your worldview.
Darwinism is the explanation of life minus the Creator.
Theistic evos are extremely short on theism which proves their position is to hijack a perceived endorsement of the Bible for the sole intent of supporting Darwinism.
THE ONLY ISSUE IS:
Is the God of the Bible the Creator or not ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by AdminNosy, posted 10-21-2004 8:29 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 53 of 74 (153207)
10-26-2004 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Loudmouth
10-22-2004 2:29 PM


Re: Rational?
but I agree with you Willow. We all need philosophy or theology to answer those bigger questions about life and existence.
Great Loudmouth - I agree.
However, the more narrowly defined "truth" of how the natural world works and has worked is best answered by science and not religion.
I agree as this has been my position.
I only protest when science types who know nothing about the Bible intrude therein and cause havoc with their gross ignorance OR offer a scientific interpretation which is made to disprove a Biblical claim.
Until the last 250 years religion had free reign over scientific truth and it went nowhere. It wasn't until religious bias was removed from science that real discoveries were made.
That so called removal of religious bias is an ambiguous hatchett job on truth which oversimplifies the issue.
The only issue is God as Creator.
When God is not given a seat at the creation table this exclusion triggers the wrath of God-sense removal. Hence the explanation of the lopsided influence of atheism in science, law, media, and education.
These four areas have experienced massive endorsement of atheistic ideology and have forced them on to society.
Why ?
Romans says God punishes persons by removing any desire for Him as a penalty for resisting His perceived encroachments as the Creator.
This tunnell of atheism as labeled by Professor Huston Smith was identified by Dr. Scott as the wrath of God as recorded in Romans 1.
This entire scenario of atheistic success in the aforementioned 4 areas of society ALSO proves the Biblical scenario and claim that the world is fast moving toward Anti-Christ and the End Time events of the book of Revelation.
IOW, God is responsible for this atheistic success because He is punishing persons who reject Him as Creator. Which is a reaction to the works of Satan and his freedom to ensure destruction of as many people as possible.
1Samuel 2:25 NIV:
If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against the LORD , who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the LORD's will to put them to death.
NewKJV:
If one man sins against another, God will judge him. But if a man sins against the LORD, who will intercede for him?" Nevertheless they did not heed the voice of their father, because the LORD desired to kill them.
The above verses prove that the MERE unwillingness to listen to the truth/correction WAS BECAUSE God would not let them BECAUSE He wanted to kill them.
The point is that there is a time when the love of God ceases and He turns into an enemy.
Persons who have no God-sense have crossed the line. Their common denominator is that they don't care about God = the truth referenced above.
All this because Darwinists refuse to let God be the Creator - the only issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Loudmouth, posted 10-22-2004 2:29 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Loudmouth, posted 10-27-2004 1:28 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 54 of 74 (153211)
10-27-2004 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
10-22-2004 9:15 PM


Re: WILLOWTREE
Unless you can define what you mean by truth, that is a meaningless statement.
John 18:38, Pilate speaking to Jesus:
Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.
Jesus is truth and there is no fault in Him at all.
You do not seem to outline what it is YOU are addressing when you mention things such as truth. Before anyone can even debate such issues it will be necessary for you to define your terms.
I completely agree that terms should be defined.
My only issue is the Bible and scientific interpretions that are offered to assert a claim therein to be false.
When this happens I point out that the interpretation is based on the worldview of the person and not the evidence. IOW, philosophy is king.
Can you pick, as a beginning point, one specific case?
Darwinism and its claim that the evidence thereof means there is no Creator/God of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 10-22-2004 9:15 PM jar has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 55 of 74 (153212)
10-27-2004 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object
10-26-2004 10:51 PM


What qualifications do you or any evo have in Divinity ?
Absolutely none whatsoever - the same qualifications as you, or any other human being. The "divine", whatever that is, is quite outside the realm of human knowledge. Even if you think the Bible is right about divinity, how would you know? You'd have to be able to know about divinity yourself to assess that, and you can't.
Science is the only path to knowledge that is different than making stuff up. All the rest are no better than invention.
Atheists are responsible for the deaths and murder of 100's of millions of persons in the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc nations and China. In Albania, if you are not an atheist you are subject to death.
With the help of Christians, and other believers, yes.
Nazi's fully embraced your ToE.
Along with your beliefs on God.
On the other hand, one man named Norman Borlaug used science to save a billion human lives. I'm totally not joking. One billion lives saved by Norman Borlaug. Look him up.
unlike the evolutionary scenario which wants nothing to do with the genius of the ancients and their wonders.
What wonders? Some upended stones? A few pyramids? We live in an age where the most commonplace action - say, a woman buying a prepaid cell phone and a microwave burrito in a convinience store with a credit card - is more wonderous by far than anything seen in centuries past.
Evolutionary scenario HAS to ignore and change history because its uninterupted ascent is smashed by the ultra intelligence of antiquity.
What in the past could possibly compare to Einstein's relativity, or Godel's incompleteness theorem? Or Norman Borlaug's unparalleled beneficence?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-26-2004 10:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2004 12:14 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 56 of 74 (153217)
10-27-2004 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Cold Foreign Object
10-26-2004 10:57 PM


I said science, when it intrudes and concludes against a Biblical claim is philosophising in the name of objective scientific interpretations.
But what if the Bible intrudes in a scientific matter? Are we to suspend studies in entomology simply because the Bible says locusts have only four legs?
If the Bible sees fit to inject itself into matters upon which it has no purview, then its supporters should not be surprised to find it contradicted by science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-26-2004 10:57 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 57 of 74 (153221)
10-27-2004 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by crashfrog
10-27-2004 12:03 AM


WT writes:
unlike the evolutionary scenario which wants nothing to do with the genius of the ancients and their wonders.
Evolutionary scenario HAS to ignore and change history because its uninterupted ascent is smashed by the ultra intelligence of antiquity.
responding Crashfrog writes:
What wonders?
What in the past could possibly compare to Einstein's relativity, or Godel's incompleteness theorem? Or Norman Borlaug's unparalleled beneficence?
Your replies to my blue boxes completely confirm the accusations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 12:03 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 10-27-2004 12:22 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 58 of 74 (153224)
10-27-2004 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by Cold Foreign Object
10-27-2004 12:14 AM


Your replies to my blue boxes completely confirm the accusations.
And your disingenuity in avoiding any meaningful response confirms that you have no case, nor any interest in fruitful debate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-27-2004 12:14 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 74 (153392)
10-27-2004 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object
10-26-2004 11:47 PM


Re: Rational?
quote:
That so called removal of religious bias is an ambiguous hatchett job on truth which oversimplifies the issue.
The only issue is God as Creator.
When God is not given a seat at the creation table this exclusion triggers the wrath of God-sense removal. Hence the explanation of the lopsided influence of atheism in science, law, media, and education.
The theory of evolution does not remove God from the table. This is left to personal religious bias. Science is not atheistic, it does not say that God does not exist. However, atheists do use science as a reason to support their views, I will agree with you there.
There are still christian scientists who work in biology and support evolution. If science REQUIRED the removal of God from the creation table then how can christians be part of it? The only answer is that science is areligious, devoid of any religious bias whatsoever.
quote:
Romans says God punishes persons by removing any desire for Him as a penalty for resisting His perceived encroachments as the Creator.
So, in other words, evolution can be true but God will punish you for accepting it as scientifically true? The removal of Godsense has not stopped scientists from finding transitional fossil after transitional fossil, fulfilling predictions made by the theory of evolution, and demonstrating common ancestory through fossils and DNA. Removal of Godsense has not stopped evolution from being supported by the data time after time. The presence of Godsense has yet to yield any positive evidence that would falsify evolution on the part of creationists. It would seem that Godsense is useless in investigating scientific realities.
quote:
Persons who have no God-sense have crossed the line. Their common denominator is that they don't care about God = the truth referenced above.
All this because Darwinists refuse to let God be the Creator - the only issue.
If Darwinists refuse to let God be the Creator they are not doing science. Science is the HOW, theology speaks to the WHY. You are limiting God when you proclaim that He DIDN'T use evolution and natural mechanisms to create the universe. It is you who is removing God from the creation table, not science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-26-2004 11:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 60 of 74 (153876)
10-28-2004 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object
10-26-2004 10:51 PM


willowtree writes:
Darwin actually stole his theory from some poor guy who was on a sick bed, this means the origins of Darwinism are fraud.
Do you mean Wallace? What proof do you have of this bald assertion?
This of course means that his whole world tour was a fraud then? all the journals that he wrote and specimens he took? the specimens collected by other people on the trip that he used later to confirm one of his concepts?
And of course this faceteous ad hominem assertion does nothing to the fact that evolution is found everywhere, the science has grown substantially since the days of Darwin and Wallace, but the core concepts remain: things change. Over time things change a lot, and some changes survive and others don't.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 10-26-2004 10:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024