On The Limits of Human Talent

I agree. The point of this thread is that we should be able to distinguish between useful science and wasteful science, or science that's only intent is to promote the destruction of Christianity. We should recognize the importance of leaving alone mysteries that belong only to God. I"m not saying that atheists shouldn't be permitted to study their secular curiousities all they want. They should just do on their own time with their own money, and not teach it as fact in public science classes. That's what they demand from Christians, but they don't apply it to themselves. And questioning public searches for atheist support.

And the understanding of atheists that shout it from the rooftops, on the public dime.

We have the capacity to lean upon our own understanding for lots of things. My point is that we should be able to distinguish between what we can understand and what we can't, or shouldn't waste our time (or public resources) with.

No, I never said I disregard science. I just disregard what is clearly not science, just metaphysical searches for support of the atheist worldview.

Oh, how convenient!Now all you have to do is tell yourself that the science that you don't want to agree with is really just metaphysical searches for support of the atheist worldview. That way you can pick and choose what you want to accept and what you don't.That must be so comforting.

quote:

---

I agree. The point of this thread is that we should be able to distinguish between useful science and wasteful science, or science that's only intent is to promote the destruction of Christianity.

---

Obviously not. The point is - as usual with you - to demand a far-right pseudo-Christianity founded upon lies.

quote:

---

We should recognize the importance of leaving alone mysteries that belong only to God.

---

By which you mean that the dogmas of your sect should not be questioned.

quote:

---

I"m not saying that atheists shouldn't be permitted to study their secular curiousities all they want. They should just do on their own time with their own money, and not teach it as fact in public science classes.

---

By which you mean that teaching should be censored to remove facts contrary to the dogmas of your sect.

quote:

---

That's what they demand from Christians, but they don't apply it to themselves.

---

No. Atheists in general have no problem with real science being taught as science.

quote:

---

And questioning public searches for atheist support.

---

It obviously doesn't say anything about that. Nor does it endorse the worship of lies.

This is a weird combination of self-importance and paranoia.Science just does science - great chunks of it purely for it's own sake but NEVER to promote the destruction of Christianity. That's just laughable. It's the sort of thing you would have heard from a 16th century zealot or a Inquisitor.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

The beautiful thing about science is that a kilogram is a kilogram regardless of who does the weighing. A kilo of grass is the same for a Rastafarian as it is for an atheist and the Lord loves an honest measure. I think that is why he gave us scales.The thermometers that measure sea temperature are not influenced by philosophy. The co2 monitors that measure atmospheric co2 concentrations are not swayed by feelings of guilt nor are they concerned with the possible economic repercussions of their readings. Ice melts at the same temperature for Episcopalian scientists that it does for atheist scientists."Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding." Proverbs 4:7

Attack the messenger rather than the message? When there are thousands of scientists coming to the same conclusions based on objective empirical evidence it must be their motives that are at fault? Do you have objective empirical evidence for this or is it just something you tell yourself to explain why science doesn't produce the answers you want? Like the evidence that shows the earth is over 4.5 billion years? The evidence that the universe is over 12.5 billion years? The objective empirical evidence that is left by their creation? Like the bible? LOL -- a lot of things humans do is a waste of time, but that doesn't mean scientific investigations necessarily are a waste of time. There are more important things that don't get done because of politics and false beliefs -- beginning with teaching proper science in school. Ah, refuting bad logic and unsupported assertions is ignoring them and pretending they'll go away. Compared to the catastrophe that is occurring due to ignoring climate change? Yep - that's one way to avoid testing it, a cognitive dissonance way. Curiously I test my faith with ALL substantiated knowledge, not some twisted belief based misrepresentation.Enjoy

This thread isn't about specific issues but about the broad approach. You're arguing that there are some things we cannot know and that such things should be left to God. I merely pointed out that ICR, a famous creationist organization, disagrees with you.If your point was actually that you're unfamiliar with ICR, then you could go to the ICR website, or take a look at Henry Morris's The Genesis Flood or Duane Gish's Evolution: The Fossils Say No!. The website and the books enumerate scientific evidence that they claim proves the accounts in the Bible true, thereby failing to, in your words, "acknowledge that there are some things that humans will never be able to figure out, to the extent to be able to challenge anything the 66 book Bible says"?And CRS (Creation Research Society) and the Discovery Institute argue in pretty much the same way.These significant organizations on the creationism side of the fence obviously disagree with you.--Percy

And these mysteries are identified by ... oh, right, your personal opinion."It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." --- so the Bible says in Proverbs 25:2. I can't find where it says that searching out certain matters concealed by God isn't glorious, and gives a list. How 'bout you? The standard is the same: do you have evidence? For example, the Bible says the Sun exists, and it's perfectly OK to teach that as fact in science class, because it appears to be true. Well, so does the proposition, widely accepted by theist and atheist alike that (for example) the Earth is billions of years old. So that can also be taught in science class. You see how this works?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If it was "clear" that the bits of science you don't like are "not science", then this would be known to scientists, who know quite a lot about science, rather than this being a mystery revealed only unto a collection of scientifically illiterate religious zealots who don't know what "metaphysical" means or what scientists actually do.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

The key word there is "we". We are making that distinction whether you like it or not. We are society, not just your little cult. Our intent is not to promote the destruction of Christianity whether you think it is or not. If Christianity implodes because of what we do, that is not our fault, it's your fault. We don't know what mysteries belong only to God. If you think you do, you're pretty arrogant. It's a matter of secular money being used by secular scientisits for secular purposes. What "should not be" is one religious sect dictating to everybody else what is taboo. I'm not sure if you're making a play on the word "talent" deliberately or inadvertently.

Remember that Biblical Christians have a foundation of disregarding all reality that conflicts with their beliefs including the contents of the Bible itself.

As self-appointed arbiter of what is true science and what isn't, can you provide a brief list of criteria that allows you to so confidently make that distinction? Something more specific than whether or not you agree with it, which I rather strongly suspect is the metric you apply.