Two things were notable by their absence in this thread: a coherent definition of the supernatural, and a clear statement of how one does supernatural ID science.
Of course, if you want to hear words upon words upon words about either one you need only ask Buzsaw or Marc9000 or Tesla or, a long time ago, Randman, just don't expect either of these two things:
- For them to agree on anything.
- For them to take any notice of the chasm of disparity in their views.
Randman's participation was too long ago to comment, but Tesla gets my award for incoherence, and Marc9000 and Buzsaw tie for cluelessness. I can't comment on the content of anything they said because none it made any sense.
Listen you creationists and IDists out there: If you've got a new and better way to do science, and if the scientific community is turning a deaf ear, then just go off and use this new and better science to produce new and better results. The world will beat a path to your door. Stop whining and complaining about science and start actually doing science.
Until you begin actually doing science the world is going to think, quite correctly, that your inability to deliver any scientific results is because you're actually doing religion.
AbE: Turns out I'm moved to say a few more words.
The reason Randman and Buzsaw and Marc9000 and Tesla agree on almost nothing, and the reason why those on the side of science agree on almost everything until you get down to minutia, is because creationists these days all brew their own science. What creationists come here and tell us isn't something they've worked on ceaselessly as a group effort for centuries, but rather just what happens to appeal to them personally. Each creationist is his own inventor of a personal creationist science that includes all his ignorance and personal lunacies with no process of checks and balances with other creationists.
In the same way that Christianity is divided into multitudinous sects with their own particular beliefs about such things as grace and salvation and so forth, so is creationism divided into even more multitudinous sects down to the level of the individual. Few creationists come here any more all primed after reading a bunch of ICR technical papers. Nope, today's creationist is a lone desperado with knowledge gained in the wild of his own imagination, shooting from the hip and making it up as he goes along.
To be taken seriously in science creationists must begin disagreeing with one another so they can begin conducting research on the disagreements. This will generate a growing foundation of technical results that they all agree on. They can start by agreeing on a definition of the supernatural.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Punctuation.
Edited by Percy, : AbE.
™ Version 4.2
(1)