So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY)

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.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Punctuation.Edited by Percy, : AbE.

You're not being very nice, so I'll respond in kind.I've been too busy to post lately, and will continue to be too busy in the coming months. I hope to be back a little more regularly sometime in the future. I am at least pleased to see that "Scienctifictruths" is up to about 25 posts now. His very first post was a response to me as if he'd been here for years - that's happened to me at other boards. Chances are a regular poster visits a friend, (or walks to a neighboring apartment) registers here on his friends computer, and then another user name piles on a lone creationist. Maybe ScientificTruths isn't one of those, but it happens. I'm sure administrators find that as disturbing as I do, and nothing can be done about it. But overall, the gang approach that evolutionists use at these types of forums is very telling. It's a method of "argument by emotive language", a logical fallacy. These discussions are about philosophy more than science. Christians disagree on many things because they think for themselves, while evolutionists agree on most things because they all get their instructions from the scientific community, talkorigins, and other atheist organizations. I wouldn't think that being mindless sheep/followers of the likes of Richard Dawkins would be something to be proud of. Of course we get the mantra that most evolutionists are devout Christians, but a lot of that is phony. That's always denied of course, but you still can't deny the pile-on, shout-down approach that evolutionists have. There is a reason for the anger of course, atheists are generally not happy people. Most Christians can easily agree on that.The point I've made that always falls on deaf ears, is the double standard between what passes for science and what does not. The "top-down" approach of life origins, the "stops and starts" question of life's origins that Behe has brought up, as only two examples, are labeled as being religious by the atheist scientific community, while the untestable, atheist hypothesis of things like the "PAH World Hypothesis", or the SETI Institute, are heralded as being testable, repeatable, observable science, which of course they are not.Maybe this fall or winter, I'll do a one-on-one with you or anyone else concerning that.Marc

Once again you simply post total falsehoods and misrepresentation, which is what we have learned to expect from you.Many of the recognized Christian Churches understand that Evolution is a fact and that the Theory of Evolution is the only model that explains the variety of life seen today and in the past and to imply that it is some atheistic position is simply false and this has been pointed out to you many times.In the words of the Clergy letter signed by over 12,000 US Clergy:

quote:

---

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as one theory among others is to deliberately embrace scientific *** and transmit such *** to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

---

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

One last message per person, summarizing your thoughts on the topic.If more than one message from a given member - Things may well get ruthlessly deleted (not just hidden).Adminnemooseus

---

Please be familiar with the various topics and other links in the "Essential Links", found in the top of the page menu. Amongst other things, this is where to find where to report various forum problems.

quote:

---

There is a reason for the anger of course, atheists are generally not happy people. Most Christians can easily agree on that.

---

quote:

---

You're not being very nice, so I'll respond in kind.

---

I'm just trying to follow the logic here.....Yes, I'm angry all the time, rawwwr.... Really, are we so juvenile as to insult each other with broad generalizations with absolutely no evidence?So now you're generalizing me because I'm new? Gang approach huh? Did you notice that when you backed off and Tesla was the only one left that the others gradually stopped adding in as well, for the most part it was just me and Tesla talking (with the occasional outside comment).In any case, I joined more to educate myself (and I won't be so naive as to say others, but maybe I could hope). I don't pretend to have been here for years; and personal attacks are not warranted.Anyway, I think I've pretty well shown what I think on the topic, anything else I add will really not be relevant.

I think that there is a real disconnect between those who believe that supernaturlism can work in science and those who actually do science. Perhaps an analogy will help. The following conversation is between a new football fan and a football coach (american football or soccer work equally well).Fan: Hey coach, you should be using quantum theory in games and in practice.Coach: How do I do that?Fan: Well, you use it as part of your football program.C: Again, how do I do that?F: If you weren't so closed minded, you would understand how quantum theory can be used.C: So, what am I blind to?F: How quantum theory can help your football program.C: We are right back where we started. How can it help my football program specifically?F: Well, I don't know about specifics, but the first thing I would do is get a bunch of football experts and help them put quantum theory into how football is done.C: You still haven't answered my question.And so it goes. Those pushing supernaturalism have no idea how science is done, but they are just sure that supernaturalism would work. They go one step further and blame the absence of supernaturalism on biases held by scientists, all the while forgetting that many are in fact theists. In the analogy above, we can confirm that both quantum theory and football are real things. However, there is nothing in quantum theory that is really useful for the activity of football. The same for science. There is nothing in supernaturalism that is useful in science.