On The Limits of Human Talent

Just using ICR as an example, aren't Henry Morris, Duane Gish, Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin all examples of Christians arguing that God's word has been put to the test and found true?--Percy

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

You, a creationist, need evidence of what a prominent creationist organization believes? Really? Well, here ya go (from Discover ICR | The Institute for Creation Research): They don't agree with you.--Percy

For someone who purportedly wants to discuss the limits of what we can know you sure are calling a lot of attention to the limits of what you yourself know. Or, to state it another way, you sure seem to know a lot about things that aren't true.What I want to know is why you think anyone isn't free to learn whatever they like about the natural world. I know you said we should stop short of putting God's word to the test, but as has already been pointed out, what you're really saying is that we should stop short of putting your understanding of God's word to the test.So how do you know your understanding of God's word is correct? That is, of course, a rhetorical question, because short of scientific research about, for example, the age of the Earth, we can't know if it is your understanding or someone else's that is correct.So what you're really saying (and I think this has been said before in this thread) is that we shouldn't delve too deeply into areas that might challenge your beliefs.--Percy

Oh, no, I wasn't commenting about your ignorance of just science. I was referring to your profound general ignorance of almost everything. What you believe true seems based upon how many other people believe the same things, with nary a hint of a strategy for how you decide between differently believing groups of many people. Say what? One reason you garner so much negative attention is because you so often and so obviously contradict yourself. Here you deny saying that we aren't free to learn whatever we want about the natural world, but this is belied by your statement in Message 1 where you said, "It means to stop short of using what we learn to put God (or God's word) to the test."So are you giving up on that position from your opening post? Let us know, okay?You go on to invent a different reason: 8 years ago? This site has been around for nearly 13 years, and science for a lot longer. No one on the science side, either here in the last 13 years or anywhere within science over the past couple hundred years, has ever included useful (by which I think you mean of practical use, because science is always extremely useful in providing an understanding of the universe around us) as a required characteristic of science. This claimed change of yours of 8 years ago never happened. Not here, not anywhere. You're just making more things up that aren't true. Then when people call you on things like this, you whine that people are ganging up on you.When you make very ignorant or incorrect statements, people might react in at least a few different ways. They might think, "Gee, he thinks I'm so stupid that he can say anything and I'll believe it," which might make people feel kind of disrespected. Or they might think, "Gee, he thinks so little of me that he puts no thought whatsoever into his replies," which might also make people feel kind of disrespected. Or they might think, "Gee, is this guy incredibly ignorant or what!" which will make people feel they have to correct you. Or people might react with some combination of these, or it could be some other feelings, likely none of them positive.So the next time you feel moved to claim something incredibly ignorant, such as that something has to be useful to be considered science, why don't you do a little sleuthing around the Internet first. Maybe scan through the first few paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on Science.Bottom line: If you stop saying things that aren't true (and then compound matters later by determinedly insisting they are true), people might actually begin respecting what you say.There are so many fallacies in your message that if I gave each one the attention it deserved this message would go on forever, and anyway I see some of them have already been addressed by others. I'll let them go.But I would like to clear this one up: No one's trying to "shout you off." We like creationists here. Without creationists there'd be no discussion.You're operating under the fallacy that if a lot of people believe as you do then it must be true, but consider that if what you believed to be true were actually true, then you would be able to make true statements in defense of that truth. Your inability to say anything true in defense of your beliefs is telling you something, but you're not listening. About the only thing you've said that's true and accurate is that a lot of people believe as you do, but the nature of the universe isn't decided by human belief.You're also failing to ask yourself how can you claim that many people believing the same thing is a valid basis for believing anything, when you know that there are many people who believe other things. Many people believe the Earth is 6000 years old, and that's your basis for claiming this is true. But many people believe the Earth is billions of years old, and given your criteria that many people believing something is a legitimate basis, that must be true, too.So how do we determine which group is right? Scientific research.So why did I give Dr Adequate's Message 44 a cheer? Because of a couple things he said that would be to your great advantage to take to heart.

• Scientists are not interested in disproving religious beliefs.
  ​
• In particular, scientists are not interested in disproving your religious beliefs.

Religious beliefs are not anywhere on scientist's radar when they're doing scientific research. There are too many different religious beliefs for this to even be practical, but specifically, disproving Christianity is not a goal of science, and especially not your particular branch of Christianity. Read any scientific paper and you won't find any mention of religion anywhere in them (aside from those branches of science that are in some way related to the study of religion - archeological papers about Biblical sites would be an example).Also, many scientists are deeply religious, giving the lie to another of your ignorant claims, that science is atheistic. It would be more accurate to describe science as agnostic, in the same sense that plumbing and knitting are agnostic. Even more accurate would be to describe religion as irrelevant to science.But all the above is just an attempt to talk you back into sensibility by encouraging you to vet your claims before making them, and to make claims that are actually true. The topic of this thread, as far as I can tell despite all your ramblings into other topics, is your belief that there should be some areas of scientific research considered off-limits, determined by whether they would test God's Word. I've made two responses to this so far:

• The major creationist organizations like ICR, CRS, AIG and the Discovery Institute do not agree with you.
  ​
• I inquired why you think we shouldn't be free to study whatever we like about the natural world.

--Percy

Agreed, with the clarification that in my view the context only suggests the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, not lying. I think Marc sincerely believes all the crazy things he says.--Percy

Hi Marc,Coyote and I haven't discussed this, but when he asks about other sources of knowledge I don't think he has academic areas like history (or English or social studies) in mind, which he likely believes are as disciplined as science in their methods of gaining and validating knowledge. I think he's asking about the methods themselves for gaining and validating knowledge. History or English or social studies use principles and methods analogous to those of science for gaining knowledge, for instance by forming hypotheses and gathering evidence, even performing experiments when called for. They are not other ways of gaining knowledge.To my mind the question Coyote is asking is rhetorical because there are no other methods. If you think other approaches exist then you should tell us what they are.Scientific consensuses form when sufficient evidence amasses to convince a majority of the relevant scientific community. This evidence is gathered using the scientific method. When you think a scientific consensus is wrong (like global warming), what method of gaining knowledge are you using to challenge that consensus?Since no other method exists, you can only challenge a scientific consensus by finding new evidence or new insights. Short of that, your challenge is empty.--Percy

Hi Marc,I doubt anyone disagrees that amidst scarce resources we will be forced to make hard choices. If that's all you meant by not being free to research anything we like about the natural world then we can agree and move on.In your opening post you stated that our efforts to extend our knowledge should not question God's Word. Are you still going to defend that position or have you abandoned it? Let us know, okay? Oh, I recognized that, but your claim about a removal of a requirement of utility from science was completely unfamiliar. You go on to say this was not part of the Dover trial but was instead from a discussion board you participated at. It's likely you misunderstood what was being said. They weren't saying that ID isn't science because it lacks practical utility. They were saying that ID isn't science because it lacks the ability to tell us anything that is actually true about the natural world, which is the entire raison d'etre of science. You misunderstand again, this time about scientific consensus, which you'll recall arises in response to the amassing of sufficiently persuasive evidence. Global warming isn't true because there's a scientific consensus. Rather, there's a scientific consensus about global warming because it is likely true. Now you're confused again. I said that the way to establish something scientifically is through scientific research, and you respond with complaints about the political process. If politicians were confronted by a scientific consensus that global warming is false they would be making different decisions than the ones they're making now. The way to change the scientific consensus, and thereby the resulting political decisions, is through scientific research.If you prefer a political rather than scientific approach, then to change the way politicians respond to a scientific consensus that global warming is true you must elect politicians willing to ignore science. There are many of this type of politician already in office. So much ignorance, so little time.According to Wikipedia, less that 2% of Americans describe themselves as "atheist". The Southern Baptist Convention is 5% of Americans all by itself. Atheists as a political group are far too few in number to have any political influence.Atheists do not believe we can know everything. You're thinking of scientists, but they don't believe that either. What scientists actually believe is that the scientific method is the best and most reliable way to increase our knowledge of the natural world.--Percy

You're terribly confused and seem to be having a great deal of difficulty making distinctions that aren't at all subtle (a theme you continue in your next message, but I'll get to that in my next reply). You said there were other ways of gaining knowledge besides science, and now when pressed to tell us what they are you can only ramble on about things that definitely are not methods of gaining knowledge.I can see you're very concerned about the political decisions being made that are based upon some current scientific understandings (such as climate change), but if that's what you really want to discuss then you should propose a new thread or find an old one where that would be on-topic.--Percy

My God, are you ever confused! First you say science should avoid seeking information that might test God's word, and now you're saying that science should be more engaged in seeking information about God. Do even you know what you're trying to say? And it's telling you precisely what I told you it would be telling you way back in my Message 83, that Intelligent Design is useless as science, meaning that is incapable of extending our knowledge of the natural world. It's definitely not saying that ID isn't science because something has be useful (meaning of practical use) before it can be considered science.I explained how you're confusing two different contexts using the word "useless", Dr Adequate explained it, Shalamabobbi explained it, PaulK explained it, yet you continue merrily along with the same confusion - what is wrong with you? Are you daft? How can hypotheses and theories resulting from deep space exploration not be testable and falsifiable through further deep space exploration?You continue to harp on climate change, but unless it is an example of something science shouldn't research because it would test God's Word then you should stop, because it isn't on-topic. There are plenty of people here who love to discuss climate change with you - why don't you start a new topic?You also continue to confuse the practice of science as a way of gaining knowledge of the natural world with the political decisions based upon scientific knowledge. In fact, you continue to confuse almost everything. I hope you don't believe that non-religious Americans are actually atheists, with only 5% admitting it, because the question that was asked in the poll (Poll shows atheism on the rise in the U.S.) was this: Your paranoia is showing again, and this isn't the thread's topic.--Percy

Predictions of when we'd run out of oil received significant public attention several times during the 20th century, but I don't think there was even any scientific consensus to this effect. I think Marc may be referring to predictions from the 1920s when he refers to running out by 1950. He should take a look at this article about past oil prognostications. He should in particular pay attention to this part: Marc, a couple questions for you:

1. Assuming, just for the sake of discussion, that a scientific consensus developed at some point in the past that we should have run out of oil by now, and that this consensus developed out of scientific research that relied upon forming hypotheses, gathering evidence, performing experiments, analyzing the results, and repeating and replicating the work, and that therefore the results represented the best thinking available at the time, what alternative method are you proposing that would be an improvement?
   ​
2. What limits do you think should be imposed upon petroleum research, and more importantly, why?

--Percy

Nobody's mocking you. You're doing that yourself. All we're doing is calling attention to your ridiculous statements, like this one where you claim that when you said one thing you actually meant quite another: And when I say that what you said is not what you meant, what I really mean is, "How do you manage to make it through a normal day? How is it possible that you have made it to this point in your life without receiving a Darwin Award (posthumously, of course)?" Yes, Marc, that science should avoid testing God's word is exactly what you said, and we know this because we can read your own words in your topic proposal where there is nary a mention of the public interest, public funding, or government funding. What you said was: These transparent attempts at misrepresentation are why you're drawing the kinds of responses that you're somehow interpreting as atheistic rage and anger (by the way, I'm not an atheist). Why don't you try an experiment. Don't say anything wildly wrong or contradictory for a week and see if the tenor of the responses changes.Your problem is that you've got an incredible case of foot-in-mouth disease, one so severe that you can hardly get through a single paragraph without being fantastically wrong or contradictory. Is this the way you conduct your business? "When I said the package would be there tomorrow, what I really meant was next week." In social groups, after you speak do you often find that conversation comes to a halt with people staring uncomfortably off into space. No, I italicized the word "useful" for emphasis. Had I thought you "made that word up" I would have said so, unlike yourself who can never seem to express what you really mean.What I said, which unlike you happens to also be what I meant, was that you're confusing two different ways in which "useful" is being used. ID was being criticized as not being useful science because it cannot contribute to our knowledge of the natural world. You misinterpreted this as a criticism that ID is not of practical use, which is probably true but is not a claim anyone made or is making.And you're still making this misinterpretation, despite the many times the distinction has been explained. Very well said (and I'm properly impressed and amazed). Yes, multiple lines of converging evidence are what can eventually produce a scientific consensus. You do have the little problem of an apparent ignorance of the multiple lines of evidence being gathered by deep space exploration, but that's okay, we're used to expressions of your insatiable ignorance. Why didn't you just say straight out that you didn't understand the question, or that you weren't going to answer the question. You're the one who brought up petroleum reserves, so I tried to make it relevant to the thread's topic where you claim that we shouldn't research things that might test God's Word. So do you really believe that the petroleum community should be free to conduct whatever research they like, even though it might test God's Word, such as about the age of the Earth? Your worldview? Since when is "wrong" a worldview? Here's yet another example of you being wrong: Of course, in the Marc9000 world of "What I Really Meant," this probably means, "Merry Christmas." Anyway, "Happy Thanksgiving" to you, too, and when you come back please try to realize that no one's out to get you, and that whether one is right or wrong that at least making sense goes a long way.--Percy