Hi Bob,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you name a single scientific advancement that is solely based on divine revelation? From my knowledge, the scientific advances we have today are the product of methodological naturalism, not divine revelation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naturalism didn't lead to those advances. An increasing population size and the freedom to pursue science relatively unrestricted of political bonds did. I'll reference AiG's list of creationists agian - if you scroll down you will see that many of the scientists who made significant advances in modern science were creationists. Science didn't advance because of naturalism - it advanced in spite of it.
So
you cannot name a single scientific advancement that is solely based on divine revelation.
Can you show a
single piece of evidence that a
single scientist from your list used Creationism in a
single significant (or even insignificant) advancement of science?
BobTHJ writes:
For the continued advancement of science. If/when the day comes that common ancestry is discarded as a viable theory it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted.
So you are saying that this is how science works? All the scientists decide to throw out the current theory they use to explain all their observations and then start looking for something new that explains them better?
it would be nice to have some of the classification work of baramins complete so no further time is wasted.
Are you serious? You are screwing with us right?
Edited by AdminModulous, : various portions hidden that are either too general or did not advance the discussion meaningfully. press peek to see the hidden content
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley