For Socrates: Bigoted materialism.

[AtheistArchon]

- Okay Soc, let's discuss why you have a problem with science.

- You've stated numerous times that scientists are "bigoted materialists", evidently because they refuse to come to the same conclusions that you do. And in a sense, you're right... science is naturalistic. It does not recognize the supernatural. In fact, it cannot do so, since supernatural events cannot (evidently) be measured... or else you'd be able to show us one.

- Therefore, for your benefit, I'll discuss the scientific method with you if you so desire. We'll go point by point and study what each step is supposed to do. You will notice during this process that at no time does science incorporate the immaterial into its scope. By understanding this, it is my hope that you'll realize that you are trying to use science to bolster your own religious beliefs, and getting upset and beligerent when the science doesn't go your way.

- It's my opinion that you're simply barking up the wrong tree. If you're going to be a scientist, you can't make up your own rules (pseudoscience) and then proclaim everyone else to be bigoted, anti-Christian, or hostile towards immaterialism and supernaturalism and therefore blind to their obvious existence. Immaterial things and supernatural things are not science. You should stick to faith in those regards.

- Ready? Here we go.

- What we call the scientific method is the process by which science shows it’s most accurate ability to predict and justify what is, and why. Here then in a nutshell is the scientific method defined in six major steps.

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Create a hypothesis which explains the phenomenon.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions about the phenomenon.

4. Test those predictions via experimentation and/or via further observation.

5. Given the results of 4, modify your hypothesis into a scientific theory, or further modify your current theory.

6. Repeat step 3.

- Our five senses are the most valuable tools we have when learning about our surroundings. If I learn something via one or more of my five senses, then I’ve experienced that thing empirically. I could touch it, see it, taste it, smell it, or hear it… or a combination of the five. Empiricism is the father of modern science. Empiricism is coming to know something via experience.

- Raw empiricism isn’t particularly useful when applied as an overall philosophy, because it denies the doctrine of raw rationalism, which includes innate ideas. Rationalism consists of a philosophy that holds that reason alone, unaided by experience, can arrive at basic truth regarding the world. Raw rationalism is what we use in our first presupposition when we say “I think, therefore I am”, since we’re not basing that premise on anything empirical; it’s considered a self-evident premise. Rationalism is coming to know something via pure logic and/or reason and not via experience.

- The scientific method is a wonderful merger of empiricism and rationalism. It bases rationalist arguments in the empirical. It tempers hypotheses with reason. It combines the best of both of these philosophies underneath the umbrella of freethought, which is a very loose philosophy (for me, anyway) based upon the scientific method in this manner.

- For example, pure rationalism could simply posit a God and then proceed via that premise, because the rationalist view would be that a God is a self-evident entity, just like “I” am. In fact, this is exactly what Descartes did after his famous Cogito. I disagree that the existence of any deity is self-evident, especially when it completely contradicts both an empirical doctrine and the SM, neither of which show any evidence of a God, as well as being apart from any real self-evident methodology. For example, I know I can think because I’m the one doing the thinking… but what is there that leads me to the conclusion that any gods exist? It’s obvious that we need empiricism as a baseline, for our experiences are what shape our perception of the material universe and reality. It’s equally obvious however that we need a degree of rationalism to instill logic, ideas, and creativity, which clearly have an important place in science.

- There are philosophers of science who argue that in reality there is no “scientific method”, but those philosophers are mostly nitpicking the finer details of observation and epistemology, or confuse the SM with pure empiricism, which allows for no creativity of thought. I believe that they also lose sight of one of the most humbling and powerful aspects of science; it is self-correcting as time, knowledge, and technology advance. Genuine science, unlike theism, makes no absolutist statements. I, as a scientist, might follow the SM to a perfectly incorrect conclusion… but this does not mean that the method itself is flawed (it is more likely that my personal bias or testing errors are the flaws). Theories only remain intact until new evidence or ideas (note; empirical and rational) show them to be inaccurate in testing. Science has been wrong, but science continually corrects itself (religions do not do this, religions are absolute until science demolishes them). Science acknowledges that while it may be the best way to solve problems, it may not be a perfect way to do so. As I said earlier, I would advise anyone who hears the claim that “ideology X is perfect” to automatically be very skeptical of that claim.

Taking a casual glance at each of the steps involved in the SM, we can understand how this process works.

Step one seems simple enough: Observe some aspect of the universe. Another way to post this step is “Ask a question about some aspect of then universe”. As simple as it sounds, this is a step which gets distorted sometimes in debate. We are, after all, not asking a hypothetical question (yet), nor musing about philosophical ‘what-ifs”. We’re noting that XYZ happens, and we don’t know why. For example, let’s say I don’t have any idea why my baseball falls to the ground when I drop it. Step one for me in determining why it does so is simply to note the fact and ask the question. Asking questions like “Is God omnibenevolent?” does not qualify as scientific since it’s a purely philosophical question, and requires several presuppositions that science does not recognize yet (like “God exists”, “God has a personality”, etc). Remember, we like the least amount of presuppositions as possible; slapping more in compounds the ambiguity of both the question and the hypothesis.

Step two can be creative: Invent a hypothesis which explains the phenomenon. This step gives us an enormous amount of leeway… we can sit back and invent suitable answers all day long, but not all of those answers can be correct. We’re going to have to apply them during the rest of the process to find out of they are accurate, inaccurate, or not even scientific. Noteworthy here is the fact that because we’re intelligent beings, we can anticipate the fact that we’re going to have to do this, so we tend to automatically cull out hypotheses which we know won’t match up later on, like “Psychic energy waves from Mars are pushing everything on Earth away from them and down towards the ground.” This is a valid hypothesis, because it does answer the question, we just don’t tend to consider it because we suspect it will fail later due to a lack of evidence of the existence of psychic powers or creators thereof, and/or due to the existence of evidence that already contradicts the notion. Not many people would have a difficult time rejecting a hypothesis such as this even this early in the process (except theists). The quality and quantity of good hypotheses depend greatly upon the level of knowledge and technology acquired at the time of the hypothesis. It’s no surprise therefore to see that science discards ‘old’ theories in light of new evidence, and to see that the resolution to some problems are dependent upon the resolution of other problems. Science proceeds via a stepping-stone process… it’s illogical to think that we can solve all the mysteries of the universe given sticks and bearskins. We have to work for the answers over time, not dream them up. When new technology comes around, we always have the potential for gaining better or more accurate data, and we can (and do) adjust our theories appropriately. So yes, there are certainly mysteries out there that we can’t explain quite yet… and hopefully this will always be the case.

Step three: Make predictions involving a given hypothesis about what we will see, or what will happen, when we test it. Being able to predict the outcome of our experiments to a high degree justifies the validity of the hypothesis… we can’t just do the test, record the results, and then claim we knew it was going to happen that way. For example, if our hypothesis is that psychic rays from Mars are pushing the baseball towards the ground, then when Mars ends up on the opposite side of the Earth from where you’re standing, the ball should fly up in the air instead of towards the ground.

Step four is my favorite step: Test your hypothesis via experimentation and/or further observation. It’s important to remember that a hypothesis is not a scientific theory; a hypothesis is the result of a creative (or even not-so creative) process done in one’s mind, and need not necessarily be justified by evidence. For example, there are an infinite number of possible hypotheses for any given unknown… including the God hypothesis. They all answer the question. The hard part comes when you actually have to test that hypothesis here in step four! Here we see the value of a hypothesis being falsifiable versus one that cannot be tested. If you can get past this step in the scientific method as represented here, then your hypothesis is indeed falsifiable, regardless of whether it is shown as false or not. This is where the God hypothesis fails… it isn’t testable. When certain elements of any God hypothesis have become testable, like the “Church” worrying about a geocentric universe (a universe with the Earth in the center) or a flat Earth with “four corners”, those elements have been tested and shown as false. The scientific theory remains, and the God hypothesis changes to accommodate it… a recurring theme throughout history. What do we find out when we notice that Mars isn’t directly above us and we drop the baseball? It still falls straight down. Thus we have a problem with the Martian hypothesis; it doesn’t work in testing. We should test a different hypothesis, perhaps gravity.

Step five gets down to the most cumbersome part of science: Record the results of step four, and compare them to your predictions. Analyze the differences, if any, and modify your hypothesis in accordance with what the tests show. It is at this step that your hypothesis, if shown to be valid at all, becomes a theory which is backed up via the results of the testing we’ve done. The more testing we do, and the more severe the test environment, the better the data looks when it succeeds. The Martian hypothesis failed, and the gravity hypothesis passed, but perhaps our predictions weren’t completely accurate… perhaps we dropped two objects and one fell faster than another. We should record this fact, and revise the hypothesis (objects will fall at the same rate in a vacuum).

Step six is a watchdog step: Go to step three. If we’ve changed our hypothesis a bit because of the results of the tests, then we should again try to predict what will happen once we test again with the new hypothesis in mind. Assuming that the testing is done correctly (and sometimes it isn’t… we’re only human), the second and consecutive run-throughs should produce predictions much closer to what the tests actually show. We should keep testing, especially when new data comes to light (facts). It’s always possible that new data can show the entire theory to be defunct! Remember my example from earlier about Newtonian gravity, and how it was a perfectly good theory until we tested it against how the planet Mercury behaves.

- Viola, the scientific method! An outline for a detailed, self-correcting process designed to advance mankind towards the truth. It should be said that many people are critical of the SM and/or the conclusions it reaches… this is certainly not a bad thing. Science can only advance when it’s properly criticized. If everything it concluded were accepted flatly as truth, we’d have faulty foundations for further advancement (Note here again the problems young-Earth creationists are having trying to reconcile biblical Genesis with what we know today… this is the problem we run into when we insist on an absolutist dogmatic philosophy. The YEC’s are stuck trying to defend a supposedly rock-solid answer to the beginnings of the Earth and the universe with no flexibility or space to breathe). Obviously we need to keep asking questions and using the tools we have at our disposal to continually refine the theories, both past and present, that are projected by science. To do anything less would be to disregard the SM in the first place.

- Science is not a perfect tool, but it is, without a doubt, the best tool for the job. Anyone who claims to know something about our universe via a method other than via science should be prepared to demonstrate that method.

[AtheistArchon]

- Socrates, I'd like you to comment, if you could, on your usage of science here. I still maintain that your beliefs are not scientific, cannot be scientific, and never will be scientific... so why employ science as a means to convince people of your beliefs?

- You adamantly claim that scripture and the bible come before anything else in your worldview. You actively reject the scientific method. You don't value any documentation unless it comes from either the bible or from AiG. So why pretend? Why not call a miracle a miracle, turn off the computer that is the fruit of evil science, and go on with your life in a geocentric universe where bats are birds and the Earth is held up by foundations?

[Socrates]

AtheistArchon:
You've stated numerous times that scientists are "bigoted materialists", I have said NOTHING of the sort. I am a scientist myself! I have said that the leading EVOLUTIONISTS are bigoted materialists. It's no accident that the evolutionary defenders here are overtly hostile to the Bible. The theistic evolutionists have merely become, for all practical purposes, materialists. ... evidently because they refuse to come to the same conclusions that you do. Rather, because they reject the reliable Eye-witness evidence to the contrary for pathetically weak circumstantial evidence.And in a sense, you're right... science is naturalistic.Applies only to OPERATIONAL science.
It does not recognize the supernatural. In fact, it cannot do so, since supernatural events cannot (evidently) be measured... or else you'd be able to show us one.Once again, the evolutionists invent a stipulative definition of "science" as naturalism. Frankly, I'm not really interested in arguing about whether creation is "science" but whether it is TRUE!!

And as a qualified scientist, I don't need lessons in the scientific method from unqualified people like you, especially as you just follow a high school text book rather than real philosophers of sciece. And you actually prove my point about true OPERATIONAL science -- evolution does NOT follows the criteria you outlined.

[Woman]

Soc,

You've never told us (that I remember) what kind of scientist you are. What is your field?

[Socrates]

Woman, I think I mentioned that my area is chemistry. That's why I'm in a good position to discuss chemical evolution ("abiogenesis").

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Today @ 07:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51892#post51892)
Socrates:
Applies only to OPERATIONAL science.


Please define operational science.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 05:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=52059#post52059)
Socrates:

Woman, I think I mentioned that my area is chemistry. That's why I'm in a good position to discuss chemical evolution ("abiogenesis"). Please then explain what makes you able to speak on geology, biblical exegesis, and cosmology? You seem to have die-hard opinions in those fields as well.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 05:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=52059#post52059)
Socrates:

Woman, I think I mentioned that my area is chemistry. That's why I'm in a good position to discuss chemical evolution ("abiogenesis"). What level is your degree? B.S., M.S., PhD?

[Socrates]

Socrates:

Applies only to OPERATIONAL science.

AdvocatDiaboli Please define operational science.See www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism

[Socrates]

Socrates:


Woman, I think I mentioned that my area is chemistry. That's why I'm in a good position to discuss chemical evolution ("abiogenesis").

Jimmy "Hitler was a Christian" Higgins:Please then explain what makes you able to speak on geology, biblical exegesis, and cosmology? You seem to have die-hard opinions in those fields as well. Because I've studies these areas. And of course it's OK for an engineer like JHWACH to be opinionated on geology, electoral politics, international politics, Nazism, philosophy and even biblical exegesis, and make a right hash of it. :dufus:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 10:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=52288#post52288)
Socrates:
Because I've studies these areas. What constitutes studying? A book or two, courses in college? Reading AIG websites?


And of course it's OK for an engineer like JHWACH to be opinionated on geology, electoral politics, international politics, Nazism, philosophy and even biblical exegesis, and make a right hash of it. :dufus: I know for myself, I've taken a couple of semesters in governmental policies, a few courses in religious studies (as my electives while getting my engineering degree and scoring top grades in all of them), and work in the field of geology and engineering. I've also read alot in the first two mentioned issues. I've got a nice library going on (Gunkel, von Rad, Noth, Freud, Jung, Tzu, Heidel on subjects ranging from Scripture Analysis, primarily Genesis and Exodus, to far eastern philosophy, to psychology and religion). I love books.

But whenever I express an opinion, you feel it is your right to completely harass my opinions as if I could never be right about anything. That if my opinion doesn't equal yours, it is not only unworthy of your consideration, but warranting complete and utter disregard. I have rarely experienced a response from you regarding a position of mine where you haven't resorted to name calling and childishness.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 05:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=52059#post52059)
Socrates:

Woman, I think I mentioned that my area is chemistry. That's why I'm in a good position to discuss chemical evolution ("abiogenesis").

What type of chemistry?

[voidhawk]

Lets Do Operational Science

Hypothesis The Christian Deity is operating in this reality, with the following attributes

It is omnipotent
It is omni benevolent
It is omnipresent
It is omniscient

Methodology
I will take a coin and toss it ten times. If the result of this test is ten heads I will convert to Christianity.

Results
H= Head, T = tails
Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Result H T H H T T H T H H


Conclusion

The results are incompatible with the hypothesis which can be considered falsified.

Either the deity does not exist or does not have the hypothesised attributes.

The deity is not omnipotent, it does not have the power to compel the result
The deity is not omni benevolent, it does not care about my fate.
The deity is not omnipresent, it was not present to compel the result
The deity is not omniscient, it was not aware of the experiment.

Question if there exists a deity with out one or more of the hypothesised attributes is it compatible with the Christian interpretation of Godhood?

Isn’t operational science wonderful! I must do some more.:smile:

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 02:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:
Frankly, I'm not really interested in arguing about whether creation is "science" but whether it is TRUE!!


Is there a better means at determining TRUTH as it applies to the physical reality than science? If there is I'd love to hear it. I think science has taught us more about reality than religion ever has.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 04:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
TenDimensions:

Is there a better means at determining TRUTH as it applies to the physical reality than science? If there is I'd love to hear it. I think science has taught us more about reality than religion ever has.

Oooh, big words there! Tell me this... if science is so useful, exactly how would you use science to cast out a demon that has caused someone to succumb to sporadically, uncontrollable jerking movements? Hmmm? I mean, your precious science, with it's God-Hating materialistic presuppositions, would probably dodge the question of demons entirely, saying something like, "Those sporadic movements are called seizures, and are caused by a medical condition known as epilepsy. We don't completely understand the disorder; however, a countless number of cycles of hypothesizing, theory develoment, and empiracle testing have allowed us to make a good deal of progress towards treating its symptoms. Here, take this medicine, which should reduce if not completely eliminate the seizures which prevent you from living your life to the fullest. In the meantime, we'll continue to study the disease, and it's symptoms, in the hopes of finding even more effective remedies, if not a cure that will once and for all eliminate this tragic affliction from all humanity." One can only wonder, in cases like this, whether science is trying to answer any questions at all, or is just being driven by people who so clearly hate God.

[AtheistArchon]

- Bald Ape, I was going to respond to your post, but I was distracted by your sig.

[TheFiveSolas]

Void wrote:


Lets Do Operational Science

Hypothesis The Christian Deity is operating in this reality, with the following attributes

(He) is omnipotent
(He) is omni benevolent
(He) is omnipresent
(He) is omniscient

Methodology
I will take a coin and toss it ten times. If the result of this test is ten heads I will convert to Christianity.

Results
H= Head, T = tails
Run 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Result H T H H T T H T H H


Conclusion

The results are incompatible with the hypothesis which can be considered falsified.

Either the deity does not exist or does not have the hypothesised attributes.


Your "test" lacks the one premise that you would need to prove your conclusion.

He MUST do anything I ask, whether He wants to or not.

In addition, the God revealed in Scripture is not one that will allow His creatures to dictate to Him how HE should behave.

[Sher]

Today @ 12:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
TheFiveSolas:

Your "test" lacks the one premise that you would need to prove your conclusion.

He MUST do anything I ask, whether He wants to or not.

In addition, the God revealed in Scripture is not one that will allow His creatures to dictate to Him how HE should behave. And the dogpound says, "Whoo hoo hoo!" :thumb: :yipee:

[Socrates]

TheFiveSolas:In addition, the God revealed in Scripture is not one that will allow His creatures to dictate to Him how HE should behave.What a shame for the likes of RufusAtticus and QED who keep whinging that God should have created things the way THEY think is best. Never mind that they couldn't design anything with a millionth of the complexity, and program the instructions to develop from a fertilized ovum, in the most advanced information storage and retrieval system in the universe.

And never mind that since God has TOLD us how He created, that's how He did it. Anyone who whinges that the evidence "looks" like it was different, and that we must seek naturalistic explanations, is deceiving HIMSELF by disregarding the eyewitness accounts.

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Today @ 07:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:
And never mind that since God has TOLD us how He created, that's how He did it. Anyone who whinges that the evidence "looks" like it was different, and that we must seek naturalistic explanations, is deceiving HIMSELF by disregarding the eyewitness accounts.

Oooh! Where did God talk about that? Did he use somekind of magnetic field to manipulate atoms into molecules? How did He create? That's what I want to know.

[tgamble]

Today @ 07:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

And never mind that since God has TOLD us how He created, that's how He did it.

And never mind that you're wrong again. You're assuming that an ancient myth is an eyewitness account even through it's been proven wrong!:argh:

[tgamble]

Yesterday @ 07:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

AtheistArchon:
You've stated numerous times that scientists are "bigoted materialists", I have said NOTHING of the sort. I am a scientist myself! I have said that the leading EVOLUTIONISTS are bigoted materialists.

Which is just as false (and irrelvent)



[/list]Rather, because they reject the reliable Eye-witness evidence to the contrary for pathetically weak circumstantial evidence.

You don't HAVE an eyewitness account. You have an ancient myth and no evidence to support it.


And in a sense, you're right... science is naturalistic.Applies only to OPERATIONAL science.
It does not recognize the supernatural. In fact, it cannot do so, since supernatural events cannot (evidently) be measured... or else you'd be able to show us one.Once again, the evolutionists invent a stipulative definition of "science" as naturalism.

Nothing to do with "evolutionists". It's the creationists who want to reinvent science to include the supernatural and assumeing creation myths are true.


And as a qualified scientist, I don't need lessons in the scientific method from unqualified people like you, especially as you just follow a high school text book rather than real philosophers of sciece.

From your posts, it's obvious you DO need lessons.


And you actually prove my point about true OPERATIONAL science -- evolution does NOT follows the criteria you outlined.

Actually it does. But you have to tell such lies because you can't refute it. You can't even offer any evidence against it!

[lordsnooty]

I still want to know what type of degree Socrates has. And where he got it.

It seems unlikely that anyone with a proper understanding of science would believe AIG to be a credible scientific resource.

I can and will go further - it's impossible.

Paul

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 05:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
TheFiveSolas:
In addition, the God revealed in Scripture is not one that will allow His creatures to dictate to Him how HE should behave.

That's right, because the Christian God is evil and wishes to see his creations burn in hell. Because he loves them.

Paul

[Socrates]

lordsnooty:It seems unlikely that anyone with a proper understanding of science would believe AIG to be a credible scientific resource.:dufus: That must be why there are about 8 Ph.D. scientists working there -- and all earned Ph.D.s from secular universities!!I can and will go further - it's impossible.:doh: As if you'd know. :bonk:

[lordsnooty]

Today @ 02:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

lordsnooty:It seems unlikely that anyone with a proper understanding of science would believe AIG to be a credible scientific resource.:dufus: That must be why there are about 8 Ph.D. scientists working there -- and all earned Ph.D.s from secular universities!!

That in itself means nothing. You can still be pig ignorant about huge areas of science and still get yourself a PHD.

I think educational standards need to be tightened up in America.

Paul

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 09:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:
:dufus: That must be why there are about 8 Ph.D. scientists working there -- and all earned Ph.D.s from secular universities!!What is the deal with mentioning "secular universities? Boston College and Fordham just to name a couple have religious backgrounds, but they are still very excellent schools. No one is questioning whether the school is religious or not. I went to a Christian college, and their science program was excellent.

As for those PhD's at AIG, have they ever published anything in peer reviewed journals regarding the young earth concepts? They are probably published, but not in the ideals the AIG would like you to think. And is that number 8 supposed to impress us? How many PhD's don't believe in the ideals of AIG? Tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands? That isn't a good ratio.

You still haven't responded about your own experience and degree. I'll say this much, I have a Bachelors in Science for Civil Engineering. Everyone else is willing to tell of their professional background, why are you so hesitant? Is it because you have no authority in your field? Are you simply a lab tech?

[yxboom]

tgamble please shorten your signature SIGNIFICANTLY or a moderator will. Thanks.

[voidhawk]

Today @ 05:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
TheFiveSolas:

Void wrote:


Your "test" lacks the one premise that you would need to prove your conclusion.

He MUST do anything I ask, whether He wants to or not.

In addition, the God revealed in Scripture is not one that will allow His creatures to dictate to Him how HE should behave.

Hi FiveSolas

I can't take too much time out I'm constructing an atheist world view.:thumb:

All I would say is that if God is omni-benevolent then he cares about me, his child to an infinite degree. By his nature he would desire my salvation therefore he would will its means.

The test is, of course, a bit of irony to draw out the IMHO false distinction between origin science and operational science.

:rockon:

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 02:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:

What a shame for the likes of RufusAtticus and QED who keep whinging that God should have created things the way THEY think is best.

This is kind of ironic comming from a creationist, who rejects that God could have created through evolution.


Never mind that they couldn't design anything with a millionth of the complexity, and program the instructions to develop from a fertilized ovum, in the most advanced information storage and retrieval system in the universe.

Never mind that nothing in this contradicts natural explainations for the diversity of life. Never mind that before you can argue that your God did anything you must show that He exists.


And never mind that since God has TOLD us how He created, that's how He did it. Anyone who whinges that the evidence "looks" like it was different, and that we must seek naturalistic explanations, is deceiving HIMSELF by disregarding the eyewitness accounts.

God has "told" you nothing. Ancient Hebew mythology != God.

Never mind that "eyewitness" accounts are notoriously flawed, especially ones not available for cross examination. If your Bible is evidence for biblical creation, then the Veda's are also evidence for Vedic creation. Care to offer any physical evidence that cooberates your creation myths? Of course if you had any you would have to complain about the evidence pointing towards something else.

[tgamble]

Today @ 04:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
yxboom:

tgamble please shorten your signature SIGNIFICANTLY or a moderator will. Thanks.

Darn. It's such a great quote!

[Socratism]

Everytime the evolutionists open their mouths they expose their bias against scripture and Christianity (and that includes the theistic evolutionists as well as the atheists).

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socratism:

Everytime the evolutionists open their mouths they expose their bias against scripture and Christianity (and that includes the theistic evolutionists as well as the atheists).

A little note: your interpretation of scripture and your version of Christianity are not the only viable ones.

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socratism:

Everytime the evolutionists open their mouths they expose their bias against scripture and Christianity (and that includes the theistic evolutionists as well as the atheists).

Everytime the creationists open their mouths they expose their bias against science, reason, logic and thinking.

[TheFiveSolas]

Hey Void! :thumb:

You wrote:


The test is, of course, a bit of irony to draw out the IMHO false distinction between origin science and operational science.


Do you really deny that there is a distinction between operational science (by this I mean the type that allows you to do experiments and observe results in the present) and origin science (which deals with unobserved, unique, and thus unrepeatable PAST events that are inferred from the present data)?

To quote Dr. Don Batten,


Operational science involves discovering how things operate in today’s Creation—repeatable and observable phenomena in the present. This is the science of Newton. However, origins science deals with the origin of things in the past—unique, unrepeatable, unobservable events. There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now. Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe). Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

Of course it suits materialists to confuse operational and origins science, although I’m sure with most the confusion arises out of ignorance. Tertiary (college / university) courses in science mostly don’t teach the philosophy of science and certainly make no distinction between experimental / operational and historical / origins sciences.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 03:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
TheFiveSolas:
You wrote:


Do you really deny that there is a distinction between operational science (by this I mean the type that allows you to do experiments and observe results in the present) and origin science (which deals with unobserved, unique, and thus unrepeatable PAST events that are inferred from the present data)?


Please help me with this black and white distinction between operational and origin sciences. Which one is astronomy (specifically, theorizing about the causes of the electromagnet waves that left supernova explosions a long time ago)? Forensics?

Based on the "origin science" of evolution, I predict the following event will occur in the next 5 years: a scientist will find another fossilized skull which not only fits in a gap between two craniums of RA's picture, but will also be geographically and radiometrically dated to a timeline corresponding to the gap into which it fit. This is a prediction of a future event - does that make "origin science" operational (in that it helps me make a falsifiable prediction of a future event)? I predict no human skull will ever be found with a geographic date greater than 20 million years ago - I predict many T.Rex bones will be found that never date to less than 60 million years ago.

I have never seen, heard about, or read about the DNA sequence that makes cytochrome c in whales, sharks, or horses. Yet, I predict the following: The cytochrome c sequence, despite producing the same compound in al three animals (in fact being interchangable amongst the three), will have numerous differences and, more importantly, the sequence of the whale will resemble that of the horse much moreso than it will the shark.

This is based entirely on the "origin science" theory of evolution that posits that the whale and the horse (different kinds?) descended from a more recent ancestor than the whale and shark. If it's not operational, than how can I use "origin science" to make predictions like this?

[Socrates]

Socratism rightly pointed out:


Everytime the evolutionists open their mouths they expose their bias against scripture and Christianity (and that includes the theistic evolutionists as well as the atheists).

Rufie limply replied:A little note: your interpretation of scripture and your version of Christianity are not the only viable ones.What RA means, we must take "tolerance" to such an absurd level that we must accept that all who call themselves "Christians" really are Christians. This is even when they deny both the historical and moral teaching of Christ and His Apostles, as RA's wife did by becoming unequally yoked to a bigoted unbeliever.

[Bald Ape]

Today @ 09:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:
Rufie limply replied:A little note: your interpretation of scripture and your version of Christianity are not the only viable ones.What RA means, we must take "tolerance" to such an absurd level that we must accept that all who call themselves "Christians" really are Christians. This is even when they deny both the historical and moral teaching of Christ and His Apostles, as RA's wife did by becoming unequally yoked to a bigoted unbeliever.

I am so proud to not be a christian right now.

[TheFiveSolas]

Bald Ape wrote:


Please help me with this black and white distinction between operational and origin sciences. Which one is astronomy (specifically, theorizing about the causes of the electromagnet waves that left supernova explosions a long time ago)? Forensics?


Let me clear something up right from the start. My earlier post is not to be taken to mean that I affirm the one IN EXCLUSION TO the other. (I'll speak more on this later in the post)

I would also like to change the terms so that you can get a better understanding of distinction I was making. Let me change "Operational Science" to "Observational Science" and "Origin Science" to "Inferential Science".

By Observational Science I mean the scientific enterprise that consists of HANDS-ON experiments by means of DIRECT observation or measurements (i.e., measuring the amount of DNA found at a crime scene, analyzing the sequence of this DNA, comparing this sequence to that of a list of suspects, etc.).

By Inferential Science I mean the scientific enterprise that consists of drawing INFERENCES or conclusions about PAST or UNOBSERVED events (i.e., concluding that the DNA of individuals is unique even though we haven't compared everyone's DNA, concluding that a suspect was at a crime scence since his DNA was found there, etc.).

I affirm that TRUE SCIENCE can and does use BOTH aspects/methods of doing science. However, it should be self-evident that the second approach is categorically different from the first. One of the main differences being in number (and type) of assumptions that are used in the one versus the other.

It should be quite obvious that measuring the sequence of DNA requires little in the realm of assumptions. On the other hand, inferring, in my example above, that everyone has a different nucleotide sequence may be a valid OR an invalid inference depending upon whether or not the ASSUMPTIONS used are valid. To put it simply, in "Inferential Science" the conclusions are ONLY valid IF and ONLY if the assumptions used are TRUE.

So, with regards to your question about which category forensics or astronomy falls into, the answer is neither and both. In other words, both astronomy and forensics utilize "Observational Science" and "Inferential Science". When forensic scientists make quantitative measurements they are doing Observational Science. When they infer conclusions from the quantifiable, and observed data they are doing Inferential Science.

The first type/method of doing science has a level of certainty that the second cannot have due to the added feature of the assumptions involved in reaching the conclusion/inference.

Hope that helped clear things up.

[Vorkosigan]

By Observational Science I mean the scientific enterprise that consists of HANDS-ON experiments by means of DIRECT observation or measurements

By Inferential Science I mean the scientific enterprise that consists of drawing INFERENCES or conclusions about PAST or UNOBSERVED events

5S, you're making a distinction that does not exist. Consider the case of Halley's Comet. Once every 76 years, we get to see it. The other 75 we have to "infer" its existence. The same principles and processes work in "both" of these. This false distinction of yours does not exist at the level of theory which unifies these two "different" domains. The theoretical models and frameworks that allow us to make inferences also permit us to make observations and vice versa. Science is a continual dialogue between the world outside of us and the world of models and frameworks that scientists use to understand it.

Furthermore, the reality is that there is no such thing as data without inference. The human mind is an inference-making machine that is built to eliminate lots of the routine data processing from conscious attention. For example, if you get out your telescope and peer at Rigel, noting its position in the night sky being different every night, you'll probably never notice the chain of inferences, conclusions, and evidence that led you to figuring out that it was Rigel you were looking at each night even though the star was in a different place every time (since it moved, how did you know it was the same star?). The fact that this type of cognition is routine and beneath your conscious awareness does not mean that inferences are not taking place. All "observation" is inference.

Thus, your statements below....

affirm that TRUE SCIENCE can and does use BOTH aspects/methods of doing science. However, it should be self-evident that the second approach is categorically different from the first. One of the main differences being in number (and type) of assumptions that are used in the one versus the other.

....are incorrect (never mind "self-evident"). Science is a name for a vast collection of methodologies for dealing with the world out there that combine various forms of interaction and inference-making. There's no place where you can cut off one from the other.

It should be quite obvious that measuring the sequence of DNA requires little in the realm of assumptions.

Think how many inferences are required to reach the point where you can build a machine to sequence DNA. Lots of assumptions are required.

To put it simply, in "Inferential Science" the conclusions are ONLY valid IF and ONLY if the assumptions used are ALSO valid.

How do you mean "valid?" If you are using it to mean "correct" your statement is clearly wrong. There are many cases of people coming to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons.

So, with regards to your question about which category forensics or astronomy falls into, the answer is neither and both.

That is because there is no difference between them.

The first type/method of doing science has a level of certainty that the second cannot have due to the added feature of the assumptions involved in reaching the conclusion/inference.

The two are the same.

Vorkosigan

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yesterday @ 10:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socrates:
Rufie limply replied:.... This is even when they deny both the historical and moral teaching of Christ and His Apostles, as RA's wife did by becoming unequally yoked to a bigoted unbeliever.
And I quote:

We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, abusive/threatening language, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated. If a strong and potentially inflammatory characterization is used, it must be backed up as to the truth of the matter.(emphasis added)

This is hardly a one time occurance. You know I tried to find the flames of The Five Solas in this thread as well, who is just as active on the "same side of the fence" as Socretes, but apparently they do not resort to the flaming that Socretes does, that which I do thank them for.

[Socrates]

Jimmy, if you have a problem, then why not raise it on the thread » Theology Wing » Theology 102 » Should a Christian ever enter into marriage with a non-Christian?

[tgamble]

Do you really deny that there is a distinction between operational science (by this I mean the type that allows you to do experiments and observe results in the present) and origin science (which deals with unobserved, unique, and thus unrepeatable PAST events that are inferred from the present data)?

If by distinction you mean that the former isn't "real" science and relies on faith and speculation, yes.


There is a fundamental difference between how the two work. Operational science involves experimentation in the here and now.


So does origin science. Fossils are examined in the present, they are found in the present. DNA is sequenced in the present, it's examined in the present etc.


Origins science deals with how something came into existence in the past and so is not open to experimental verification / observation (unless someone invents a ‘time machine’ to travel back into the past to observe).

Right. So we can expect creationists to stop claiming that this or that bit of data confirms a global flood? Not likely! Origins science also deals with past events, not just something coming into existence.


Studying how an organism operates (DNA, mutations, reproduction, natural selection etc.) does not tell us how it came into existence in the first place.

On the contrary, studies of DNA have shown how certain groups evolved.


By Observational Science I mean the scientific enterprise that consists of HANDS-ON experiments by means of DIRECT observation or measurements (i.e., measuring the amount of DNA found at a crime scene, analyzing the sequence of this DNA, comparing this sequence to that of a list of suspects, etc.).

Origins science does this as well with predictions about what past events should leave behind.


By Inferential Science I mean the scientific enterprise that consists of drawing INFERENCES or conclusions about PAST or UNOBSERVED events (i.e., concluding that the DNA of individuals is unique even though we haven't compared everyone's DNA, concluding that a suspect was at a crime scence since his DNA was found there, etc.).

hmm, so if a person's DNA is found at a crime scene, it's just an inferance that they are guilty?

Maybe O.J. really was innocent!


I affirm that TRUE SCIENCE can and does use BOTH aspects/methods of doing science.

So what's the problem?


The first type/method of doing science has a level of certainty that the second cannot have due to the added feature of the assumptions involved in reaching the conclusion/inference.


Such as?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Note - I keep seeing references to another member's marriage and wife and possible questioning of the legitimacy of her Christian profession etc. I find such questioning and comments in poor taste and ask that it please cease. There is another thread already started to discuss more generally the issues of marriages to nonbelievers.

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Maybe I'm on some ones ignore list. I'll ask again.

How did God create life? Did He use magnetic fields, or maybe nanotechnology to manipulate atoms to molecules, and then to life? Or...a miracle?

Is such knowledge beyond our grasp?
If so, why the heck is creationism marketed as science?

[TheFiveSolas]

Advocat,

You are operating under a false assumption. That assumption being that there exist "natural laws" that exist apart from God (i.e., laws that exist autonomously).

The fact is that there are no eternal, autonomous, "natural laws". The physical universe didn't exist prior to God's creating it, thus the "natural laws" didn't exist either.

Lastly, there is nothing NECESSARY about the way (laws) that God chose to run the universe. In other words, God could have made the force of gravity half as strong, or mankind to be an average of twelve feet tall rather than six.

Since there is no necessity about the laws of the universe it necessarily follows that we NEED to STUDY the world around us in order to find out HOW it regularly operates. In other words, the Christian worldview PRECLUDES armchair science and AFFIRMS observational/operational science.

[tgamble]

Today @ 09:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
AdvocatDiaboli:

Maybe I'm on some ones ignore list. I'll ask again.

How did God create life? Did He use magnetic fields, or maybe nanotechnology to manipulate atoms to molecules, and then to life? Or...a miracle?

Is such knowledge beyond our grasp?
If so, why the heck is creationism marketed as science?

Because those who market it as science are being dishonest.

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Today @ 09:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
TheFiveSolas:

Advocat,

You are operating under a false assumption. That assumption being that there exist "natural laws" that exist apart from God (i.e., laws that exist autonomously).

Fair enough. I'm game.


The fact is that there are no eternal, autonomous, "natural laws". The physical universe didn't exist prior to God's creating it, thus the "natural laws" didn't exist either.

The Scriptures tell us that God created the Universe, _then_ he created life. Therefore, life was created under the watchful eyes of "Natural Laws". But ofcourse, Natural Laws mean nothing to God.


Lastly, there is not..snip...rvational/operational science.

But, does it matter how life(I do mean life, not the universe) was created?
I have failed to see any speculation about _how_ God does things.

[TheFiveSolas]

Advocat wrote:



But, does it matter how life(I do mean life, not the universe) was created?


Yes, it does matter. Our answer to this question will determine our worldview.

Also, the creation of first life cannot be separated from the creation of the universe since BOTH are unique events.

The outstanding Latvian philosopher Isaiah Berlin, in his book Concepts and Categories, wrote:



The world of a man who believes that God created him for a specific purpose, that he has an immortal soul, that there is an afterlife in which his sins will be visited upon him, is radically different from the world of a man who believes none of these things; and the reasons for action, the moral codes, the political beliefs, the tastes, the personal relationships of the former will deeply and systematically differ from those of the latter. Men’s views of one another will differ profoundly as a very consequence of their general conception of the world: the notions of cause and purpose, good and evil, freedom and slavery, things and persons, rights, duties, laws, justice, truth, falsehood...etc.... depend ENTIRELY UPON the GENERAL FRAMEWORK within which they form, as it were nodal points.


Contemporary British Philosopher C. Stephen Evans hits the nail on the head when he stated that:



The person who believes in God and the person who does not believe in God do not merely disagree about God. They disagree about the very character of the universe.


You continued:


I have failed to see any speculation about _how_ God does things.


I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Would you care to be more specific?

You had also stated:



The Scriptures tell us that God created the Universe, _then_ he created life. Therefore, life was created under the watchful eyes of "Natural Laws". But ofcourse, Natural Laws mean nothing to God.


Again, if the Christian worldview is true, then "natural laws" simply refer to the rational, normal way that God providentially governs the universe. Therefore, life was created under the watchful eyes of God and (contra your assertion that this means "nothing") it means everything.

[Woman]

Socratism:

Everytime the evolutionists open their mouths they expose their bias against scripture and Christianity (and that includes the theistic evolutionists as well as the atheists).

Translation: I think that when people who believe in evolution talk about it...it's clear that many of them cannot reconcile a literal Genisis with modern knowledge. I also think that people who claim to be Christians but believe in an old earth are really biased against Christ just like athesits. And what I think must be right.

:huh:

[Jimmy Higgins]

Today @ 06:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:
I also think that people who claim to be Christians but believe in an old earth are really biased against Christ just like athesits. And what I think must be right.Well, why would he think it if it wasn't right? :brow:

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Today @ 10:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
TheFiveSolas:
Yes, it does matter. Our answer to this question will determine our worldview.

What is your answer? How was life created?


I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Would you care to be more specific?

Why is it that creation scientists don't seem to be studying _how_ God created life(or anything)?

[Woman]

AdvocatDiaboli:

But, does it matter how life(I do mean life, not the universe) was created?
I have failed to see any speculation about _how_ God does things.

Good question. What I want to know is why, if Christ created the universe, his disciples didn't ask him all the questions that we ask ourselves. I realize that some of them were none too bright, but in 3 whole years, during which time they lived with, ate with, drank with Jesus...why are we left with such pitiful remnants of of His life and their time with him. To our knowledge there exists nothing written by any of them during his lifetime. Indeed, we have no reason to believe that anyone who knew him intimately and were privy to the "inside" teachings, wrote a single word for our benefit.

I just find it astonishingly difficult to believe that men who thought to ask questions like "can we work on the sabbath?" - "Is circumcism necessary?" - and many much more trivial things, didn't ask "What is heaven like?" "Must we love one another and do good works to be saved or just believe you're God?" - "Tell us about the week you created the universe." "What was up with all those animals in one boat?" "What will happen when you return to judge the living and the dead?" "Will we have bodies in heaven?" "Are we supposed to pray to you?" "When you bodily ascend into heaven where exactly is that?" "Tell us how Moses and all those Jews managed to walk around in the desert for 40 years without wearing out their clothes?" "When we're raised from the dead will our bodies be old and wrinkled and our backs crooked with age as your body still has gaping holes in it?" "How long ago did you create the universe?" "How come you made that tree in the garden and sent the snake to Eve?" “What shall we write and how shall we do it so that all generations to come may know you and be saved?”

And a hundred hundred more.

Could it be they didn't really believe that Jesus was the creator God?

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Yesterday @ 11:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

Could it be they didn't really believe that Jesus was the creator God?

I'm just a Bible-amateur, but isn't the current bible a Paul-approved version of the events that are described in the NTestament?

[Woman]

AdvocatDioboli:

I'm just a Bible-amateur, but isn't the current bible a Paul-approved version of the events that are described in the NTestament?

It's highly unlikely that Paul ever saw the New Testament writings as we have them today. (Not that I ascribe authority to Paul, the self-appointed apostle who never met Christ)

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Today @ 12:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Woman:

It's highly unlikely that Paul ever saw the New Testament writings as we have them today. (Not that I ascribe authority to Paul, the self-appointed apostle who never met Christ)

Isn't there somekind of "conspiracy theory" about how Paul added all the supernatural miracles to the stories about Jesus Christ?

[Socrates]

Woman:It's highly unlikely that Paul ever saw the New Testament writings as we have them today.Oh, that must be why he cited a passage from Luke's Gospel as "Scripture" (1 Tim 5:18 cites both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as graphè; i.e. both the Old and New Testaments were regarded as Scripture).
(Not that I ascribe authority to Paul, the self-appointed apostle who never met Christ) But managed to convince the chief apostle Peter that his writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16).

[TenDimensions]

04-03-2003 @ 05:46 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Bald Ape:
Oooh, big words there! Tell me this... if science is so useful, exactly how would you use science to cast out a demon that has caused someone to succumb to sporadically, uncontrollable jerking movements? Hmmm? I mean, your precious science, with it's God-Hating materialistic presuppositions, would probably dodge the question of demons entirely, saying something like, "Those sporadic movements are called seizures, and are caused by a medical condition known as epilepsy. We don't completely understand the disorder; however, a countless number of cycles of hypothesizing, theory develoment, and empiracle testing have allowed us to make a good deal of progress towards treating its symptoms. Here, take this medicine, which should reduce if not completely eliminate the seizures which prevent you from living your life to the fullest. In the meantime, we'll continue to study the disease, and it's symptoms, in the hopes of finding even more effective remedies, if not a cure that will once and for all eliminate this tragic affliction from all humanity." One can only wonder, in cases like this, whether science is trying to answer any questions at all, or is just being driven by people who so clearly hate God.

:rofl: :rofl: Nice humor! :thumb:

You know, some people can even find and bring meaning to their lives through what science is trying to accomplish. Those pagans are just so delusional trying to deny all that supernatural stuff.

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 01:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
Socratism:

Everytime the evolutionists open their mouths they expose their bias against scripture and Christianity (and that includes the theistic evolutionists as well as the atheists).

Are you sure you don't mean their bias against all religions and all supernatural claims? :rofl: I don't ever recall having less of an issue with any other supernatural claims of creation - it just so happens that you agree with me about those stories.

[TheFiveSolas]

Advocat wrote:


What is your answer? How was life created?


If you are asking what "laws" God had to adhere to in His creation of man, I will once again correct the false assumption that undergirds this question. God created the world Ex Nihilo (out of nothing but His own sheer power). Prior to this there were no "laws" that controlled HOW God created (i.e., the order He had to take, the process He had to take, etc.)



Genesis 2:7
"God formed man out of the dust of the Earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life."


Therefore, God created man out of matter (as indicated by the phrase 'dust of the Earth'), but man is in some aspect "more" than simply matter since God is said to have taken an additional step, making man alive by instilling in him the "breath of life".

Advocat continued:



Why is it that creation scientists don't seem to be studying _how_ God created life(or anything)?


"or anything"? :no:

Let me be a little sarcastic.

What empirical study are you referring to by which you prove the above (i.e., that creation scientists, across the board, are not studying ANYTHING)?

I know of a group of creationist geologists, geochemists, and physicists that are engaged in detailed studies on radioisotopes (including detailed analysis of samples sent for testing at commercial, university, and government laboratories).

[TheFiveSolas]

Vork wrote:


5S, you're making a distinction that does not exist. Consider the case of Halley's Comet. Once every 76 years, we get to see it. The other 75 we have to "infer" its existence...For example, if you get out your telescope and peer at Rigel, noting its position in the night sky being different every night, you'll probably never notice the chain of inferences, conclusions, and evidence that led you to figuring out that it was Rigel you were looking at each night even though the star was in a different place every time (since it moved, how did you know it was the same star?).


Your example doesn't prove what you thought it did.

For instance, when someone sees Rigel through their telescope they are "directly" observing it. Thus they are able to make quantifiable measurements (i.e., luminoscity, relative size, trajectory, velocity, etc.). THIS is the "Observational" aspect that I defined in my earlier post.

Next, we can INFER, FROM the DIRECTLY observed data, what will be the case in the future OR what was the case in the past. Such inferences OBVIOUSLY do not stem from DIRECTLY observed measurements, therefore the level of certainty rests upon the truth of the assumptions involved, and also upon any unknown variables of which we are presently unaware.

Therefore, your example overlooked the very real difference between OBSERVED data and INFERRED data.

[Woman]

AdvocatDiaboli:

Isn't there somekind of "conspiracy theory" about how Paul added all the supernatural miracles to the stories about Jesus Christ?

You must be thinking of some other "apostle." Paul seems unaware of most of the kinds of miracles recorded in the Gospels. Most of Paul's writings are concentrated on securing his authority and directing the beliefs of the early church.

Soc:

Oh, that must be why he cited a passage from Luke's Gospel as "Scripture" (1 Tim 5:18 cites both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as graphè; i.e. both the Old and New Testaments were regarded as Scripture).

Well, one phrase about a worker deserving his wages hardly constitutes The New Testament. Besides which, both Irenaeus and Tertullian are of the opinion that Paul may have influenced the author of Luke.

Soc:

But managed to convince the chief apostle Peter that his writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16).

The fact that Paul was a very strong personality is not debated. This was a man who was probably present if not directly involved in the stoning death of St. Stephen. And convincing Peter is not such a coup. He was only a man, and a flawed one at that.

Solas:

I know of a group of creationist geologists, geochemists, and physicists that are engaged in detailed studies on radioisotopes (including detailed analysis of samples sent for testing at commercial, university, and government laboratories).

There are no "creationist scientists" involved in any research that does not have as its main goal disproving mainstream science, especially evolution. I suspect the group you are referring to are busy trying to villify dating methods or some other such "science."

[Socrates]

Woman:Paul seems unaware of most of the kinds of miracles recorded in the Gospels. Most of Paul's writings are concentrated on securing his authority and directing the beliefs of the early church.You actually answered your own objection. Paul concentrated on these things, and assumed that his readers would be aware of the life of Christ. So Paul only discussed things relevant to his teachings, and the Resurrection was clearly one of the most important, so Paul discussed that in detail.

What other things SHOULD Paul have mentioned? The Virginal Conception? First, there was very rarely any need to bring it up. Second, Paul does use language which implies acceptance of the Virginal Conception. He uses the general Greek verb ginomai, not gennaò, which tends to associate the husband in Rom. 1:3, Phil. 2:7, and especially Gal. 4:4, ‘God sent forth His Son, coming (genomenon) from a woman.’ By contrast, in 4:23 Ishmael ‘was born’ (gegennètai, from gennaò).

Woman is committing the fallacy of arguing from silence.

Soc:


Oh, that must be why he cited a passage from Luke's Gospel as "Scripture" (1 Tim 5:18 cites both Deut. 25:4 and Luke 10:7 as graphè; i.e. both the Old and New Testaments were regarded as Scripture).

Woman replies:Well, one phrase about a worker deserving his wages hardly constitutes The New Testament. It shows that Luke's Gospel was already highly regarded as Scripture, so Paul could quote it without fear of contradiction to people who already revered the Old Testament as Scripture. And Luke was written after Matthew and Luke. This is enough to show that Woman was mistaken to claim that Paul did not believe much of the Scripture we have today. Besides which, both Irenaeus and Tertullian are of the opinion that Paul may have influenced the author of Luke.I agree. And this was enough to confer apostolic authority on Luke. But the point is that at least three of the Gospels were written by the time Paul wrote.

Soc:


But managed to convince the chief apostle Peter that his writings were Scripture (2 Peter 3:15–16).

Woman:The fact that Paul was a very strong personality is not debated. This was a man who was probably present if not directly involved in the stoning death of St. Stephen. And convincing Peter is not such a coup. He was only a man, and a flawed one at that.But the chief Apostle. And He, as well as James (Acts 21:17 ff.) and John were convinced that this former persecutor was truly converted into a Christian, and a chosen Apostle at that.

Solas:

I know of a group of creationist geologists, geochemists, and physicists that are engaged in detailed studies on radioisotopes (including detailed analysis of samples sent for testing at commercial, university, and government laboratories).Woman writes from her lofty heights (despite not being qualified in science :tongue:)There are no "creationist scientists" involved in any research that does not have as its main goal disproving mainstream science,Creationists have no objection to mainstream science, e.g. physics, chemistry ... The ones TheFiveSolas is referring to are Ph.D. geologists and nuclear physicists.... especially evolution. Which has nothing to do with science.I suspect the group you are referring to are busy trying to villify dating methods or some other such "science."Glad that with the grammar of this sentence, Woman is including dating methods as "science"-in-quotes. :bonk:

[TheFiveSolas]

Woman wrote:


There are no "creationist scientists" involved in any research that does not have as its main goal disproving mainstream science, especially evolution.


I'll simply point out that your assertion is completely false.

For example:

Dr. John Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA
Member:
American Geophysical Union
Mineralogical Society of America
Professional Experience: (note: I've listed only his most recent employment)
(1984-Present) Technical Staff Member/Scientist - Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division, New Mexico
Recent Publications:
W.-S. Yang and J. R. Baumgardner, "Matrix-dependent transfer multigrid method for strongly variable viscosity infinite Prandtl number thermal convection," Geophys. and Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., in press, 2000.
H. R. Wenk, J. R. Baumgardner, C. N. Tome, and R. Lebensohn, "A deformation model to explain anisotropy of the inner core," J. Geophys. Res., in press, 2000.
M. A. Richards, H.-P. Bunge, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Mantle convection and plate motion history: Toward general circulation models," History and Dynamics of Global Plate Motions, AGU Monograph Series, 1999.
J. R. Baumgardner and W.-S. Yang, "Earthlike mantle convection from relatively simple rheology," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F26, 1999.
M. A. Richards, W.-S. Yang, and J. R. Baumgardner, "The effectiveness of finite yield stress in obtaining platelike surface velocities," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F962, 1999.
W.-S. Yang and J. R. Baumgardner, "Feasibility of the lava lamp model for the Earth's mantle," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F941, 1999.
D. R. Stegman, M. A. Richards, and J. R. Baumgardner, "A parallel implementation of Lagrangian tracers in TERRA," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F950, 1999.
C. C. Reese, V. S. Solomatov, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Impacts and the thermal evolution of Mars," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F618, 1999.
John R. Baumgardner, Mark A. Richards, Woo-Sun Yang, and Carolina R. Lithgow-Bertelloni, "3-D Spherical Models of Plate Motion With Laterally Varying Rheology," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 79, (1998 Fall Meeting Supplement), F911, 1998.
H.-P. Bunge, M. A. Richards, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, J. R. Baumgardner, S. P. Grand, and B. A. Romanowicz, "Time scales and heterogeneity structure in geodynamic earth models," Science, 280, 91-95, 1998.
Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "A sensitivity study of 3-D spherical mantle convection at 108 Rayleigh number: effects of depth-dependent viscosity, heating mode, and an endothermic phase change," J. Geophys. Res., 102, B6, 11991-12007, 1997.
John R. Baumgardner and Woo-Sun Yang, "A finite element multigrid formulation for variable viscosity in 3-D spherical geometry," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 77, (Fall Meeting Supplement), F750, 1996.
Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "The effect of depth-dependent viscosity on the planform of mantle convection," Nature, 379, 436-438, 1996.
Hans-Peter Bunge and John R. Baumgardner, "Mantle convection modeling on parallel virtual machines," Computers in Physics, 9, 207-215, 1995. J. R. Baumgardner, "Thermal runaway in the mantle" (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 75, 687, 1994.
John R. Baumgardner, "3-D numerical investigation of the mantle dynamics associated with the breakup of Pangea," in Flow and Creep in the Solar System: Observations, Modeling, and Theory, D. B. Stone and S. K. Runcorn, eds., NATO ASI Series C, Vol. 391, 207-224, 1993.
John Baumgardner, "3-D numerical investigation of the mantle dynamics associated with the breakup of Pangea," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 73, 1992 Fall Meeting Abstract Volume, 576-577, 1992.
M. A. Moreno, G. Schubert, J. Baumgardner, M. G. Kivelson, and D. A. Paige, "Io's volcanic and sublimation atmospheres," Icarus, 93, 63-81, 1991.
John R. Baumgardner, "Application of supercomputers to 3-D mantle convection," in The Physics of the Planets, S. K. Runcorn, ed., John Wiley and Sons, 199-231, 1988.
J. Baumgardner, M. A. Moreno, G. Schubert, and M. G. Kivelson, "Two classes of volcanic eruptions and their corresponding atmospheres on Io," Bull. Am. Astr. Assoc., 19(3), 856, 1987.
John R. Baumgardner, "Three-dimensional treatment of convective flow in the earth's mantle," J. Stat. Phys., 39, 501-511, 1985.
John R. Baumgardner and Paul O. Frederickson, "Icosahedral discretization of the two-sphere," SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 22, 1107-1115, 1985.
Peter Bird and John Baumgardner, "Fault friction, regional stress, and crust-mantle coupling in southern California from finite element models," J. Geophys. Res., 89, No. B3, 1932-1944, 1984.
John R. Baumgardner and Paul O. Frederickson, "Three-dimensional treatment of mantle convection," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 63, 1105, 1982.


Dr. Baumgardner is one of the Geophyscists involved in the radioisotope research that I mentioned in my last post. He obviously does a LOT of research into areas that do NOT have "as its main goal disproving mainstream science, especially evolution."

However, I fail to see your point. What is wrong with Dr. Baumgardner, who obviously is HIGHLY qualified in his field of Geophysics, ALSO doing ACTUAL scientific research into radioisotope dating from a creationist perspective? I find it commendable that he is refusing to operate on, what many evolutionists claim is, "blind faith" and is instead taking a scientific approach to the issue by creating a hypothesis, from the creationist perspective, and then testing that hypothesis with real-world data?

Another example of a creation scientist involved in the radioisotope study is Dr. Keith Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics, University of California. He is currently professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton. The list of his accomplisments is as equally impressive as Dr. Baumgardners.

If you would like more details on real-world creation scientists let me know. I'm happy to clear up these ridiculous misperceptions.

[Woman]

Soc!


INCOMING!!!!!!!


This is enough to show that Woman was mistaken to claim that Paul did not believe much of the Scripture we have today.

I never said that. I said "unaware."

And the quotation marks around the word "science" is in reference to activities done by creationist "scientists" ya scoundrel.

Hey, direct me to the authority you you use for Biblical authorship and chronology.

Please - :teeth:

[Socrates]

Socratism raises a good point:


Everytime the evolutionists open their mouths they expose their bias against scripture and Christianity (and that includes the theistic evolutionists as well as the atheists).

Woman replied:Translation: I think that when people who believe in evolution talk about it...it's clear that many of them cannot reconcile a literal Genisis with modern knowledge. Or modern CLAIMS of knowledge which in reality are INTERPRETATIONS of data in a materialistic framework that is ASSUMED a priori. I also think that people who claim to be Christians but believe in an old earth are really biased against Christ just like athesits. They are biased against the true Christ of the Bible, who believed "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35) and that mankind was created male and female "from the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:6) not 15 billion years later. And we frequently find that when they deny the Bible's HISTORY, denial of Biblical MORALITY soon follows, as we have amply seen on this site.And what I think must be right.Of course. Would you prefer us to say "I think X but X is wrong?"

[Socrates]

TheFiveSolas correctly points out:(post#46 )

Advocat,

You are operating under a false assumption. That assumption being that there exist "natural laws" that exist apart from God (i.e., laws that exist autonomously).

The fact is that there are no eternal, autonomous, "natural laws". The physical universe didn't exist prior to God's creating it, thus the "natural laws" didn't exist either.Indeed so. Too many people think that natural laws have ontological reality. I explained that here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=50775#post50775).

TheFiveSolas continues:

Lastly, there is nothing NECESSARY about the way (laws) that God chose to run the universe. In other words, God could have made the force of gravity half as strong, or mankind to be an average of twelve feet tall rather than six.

Since there is no necessity about the laws of the universe it necessarily follows that we NEED to STUDY the world around us in order to find out HOW it regularly operates. In other words, the Christian worldview PRECLUDES armchair science and AFFIRMS observational/operational science. Exactly, and creationists have been saying this for ages, e.g. www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Naturalism But this won't stop the likes of Bald Ape and 10D from insinuating that creationists will look for miraculous causes of all disease. Of course they will have to ignore the creationist pioneers of modern medicine, e.g. Pasteur, Lister and Simpson. Same with the foundation of other major branches of modern science.

Maybe another thing that needs to be added to » Theology Wing » Religion 101 » Skeptics' arguments that should be laid to rest is the nonsensical claim by Bald Ape and endorsed by the equally ignorant 10D here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=56138#post56138), which was, in effect, "The Bible attributes all disease to demons".

[Socrates]

Woman:Hey, direct me to the authority you you use for Biblical authorship and chronology.I recommend this well researched article, Gospel Dates, Gospel Authors, Gospels Freedoms (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html), which in turn links to essays on each of the four Gospels.

[AdvocatDiaboli]

Today @ 05:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
TheFiveSolas:

If you are asking what "laws" God had to adhere to in His creation of man, I will once again correct the false assumption that undergirds this question. God created the world Ex Nihilo (out of nothing but His own sheer power). Prior to this there were no "laws" that controlled HOW God created (i.e., the order He had to take, the process He had to take, etc.)

So creationists have no explanation at all.


Therefore, God created man out of matter (as indicated by the phrase 'dust of the Earth'), but man is in some aspect "more" than simply matter since God is said to have taken an additional step, making man alive by instilling in him the "breath of life".

How did He "breath life" into matter?


What empirical study are you referring to by which you prove the above (i.e., that creation scientists, across the board, are not studying ANYTHING)?

Lucky for me I didn't claim such a thing. I meant that creationists don't seem to be studying how God created life or anything else. (As in planets, galaxies etc.) I know creationits do a lot of research about flood geology etc.

[Vorkosigan]

Your example doesn't prove what you thought it did.

LOL. That's because you didn't understand it. You're like a savage who has found a radio and not understanding it, assumes it must be useless....

For instance, when someone sees Rigel through their telescope they are "directly" observing it. Thus they are able to make quantifiable measurements (i.e., luminoscity, relative size, trajectory, velocity, etc.). THIS is the "Observational" aspect that I defined in my earlier post.

5S, one never DIRECTLY observes anything. All data that enters the brain is filtered by various processing systems that produce the world out there for us. There is no such thing as DIRECT observation. You've left out a fantastic amount of construction that goes on in our cognitive processes. For example, your visual processing system "corrects" its inputs so that colors out there in the world remain stable -- [url=http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.shepard.html]see this article here for a discussion (scroll down about halfway) -- even though in reality they change constantly (you can discover this color correction at work by parking a blue car under a flourescent street light at night. Your eye will "correct" it to purple). The problem with your position, 5S, is that the "world" is a creation of the mind interacting with What's Out There. You can never get the stuff of reality unfiltered by the "correction" and inference processes in your mind.

Next, we can INFER, FROM the DIRECTLY observed data, what will be the case in the future OR what was the case in the past. Such inferences OBVIOUSLY do not stem from DIRECTLY observed measurements, therefore the level of certainty rests upon the truth of the assumptions involved, and also upon any unknown variables of which we are presently unaware.

Therefore, your example overlooked the very real difference between OBSERVED data and INFERRED data.

5S -- explain how you knew that you were observing all those things -- luminosity, velocity, etc -- without making any inferences, consciously or unconsciously. How did you know you were holding a telescope and not some other instrument? Your brain inferred it from the data it was recieving, unconsciously. You apparently believe that unconscious inferences are somehow less inferential for being unconscious.

Also, the next night, when you went outside and looked at the sky in search of Rigel, how did you know it was Rigel since the star had moved? The import of that question has not yet hit you. You cannot identify a particular object in the sky as Rigel unless you are making inferences -- matching information you have against data you are currently recieving and coming to a new understanding of how things are. You can't even understand that you are looking at a star without making an inference.

In any case, this distinction is both false and useless, since you have left out entirely the theory and modeling aspects of science that integrate various forms of data and understanding to produce new ideas about the nature of reality. The distinction between observation and inference as you make it is faulty. You need to rework it somehow.

Vorkosigan

[TenDimensions]

Yesterday @ 11:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
TheFiveSolas:
Therefore, your example overlooked the very real difference between OBSERVED data and INFERRED data.

This is a fascinating point that I think deserves its own thread. I think you're wrong to be making such a clear distinction between observed and inferred, plus I think there are very specific rules to making assumptions when inferring data - such as the physical laws have been relatively unchanged since the beginning of time.

I'll go start that thread now.

[Woman]

Solas:

Woman wrote:

"There are no "creationist scientists" involved in any research that does not have as its main goal disproving mainstream science, especially evolution."

Solas responds:

I'll simply point out that your assertion is completely false.

For example:

Dr. John Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics, UCLA
Member:
American Geophysical Union
Mineralogical Society of America
Professional Experience: (note: I've listed only his most recent employment)
(1984-Present) Technical Staff Member/Scientist - Los Alamos National Laboratory, Theoretical Division, New Mexico
Recent Publications:
W.-S. Yang and J. R. Baumgardner, "Matrix-dependent transfer multigrid method for strongly variable viscosity infinite Prandtl number thermal convection," Geophys. and Astrophys. Fluid Dyn., in press, 2000.
H. R. Wenk, J. R. Baumgardner, C. N. Tome, and R. Lebensohn, "A deformation model to explain anisotropy of the inner core," J. Geophys. Res., in press, 2000.
M. A. Richards, H.-P. Bunge, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Mantle convection and plate motion history: Toward general circulation models," History and Dynamics of Global Plate Motions, AGU Monograph Series, 1999.
J. R. Baumgardner and W.-S. Yang, "Earthlike mantle convection from relatively simple rheology," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F26, 1999.
M. A. Richards, W.-S. Yang, and J. R. Baumgardner, "The effectiveness of finite yield stress in obtaining platelike surface velocities," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F962, 1999.
W.-S. Yang and J. R. Baumgardner, "Feasibility of the lava lamp model for the Earth's mantle," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F941, 1999.
D. R. Stegman, M. A. Richards, and J. R. Baumgardner, "A parallel implementation of Lagrangian tracers in TERRA," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F950, 1999.
C. C. Reese, V. S. Solomatov, and J. R. Baumgardner, "Impacts and the thermal evolution of Mars," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 80, (1999 Fall Meeting Supplement), F618, 1999.
John R. Baumgardner, Mark A. Richards, Woo-Sun Yang, and Carolina R. Lithgow-Bertelloni, "3-D Spherical Models of Plate Motion With Laterally Varying Rheology," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 79, (1998 Fall Meeting Supplement), F911, 1998.
H.-P. Bunge, M. A. Richards, C. Lithgow-Bertelloni, J. R. Baumgardner, S. P. Grand, and B. A. Romanowicz, "Time scales and heterogeneity structure in geodynamic earth models," Science, 280, 91-95, 1998.
Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "A sensitivity study of 3-D spherical mantle convection at 108 Rayleigh number: effects of depth-dependent viscosity, heating mode, and an endothermic phase change," J. Geophys. Res., 102, B6, 11991-12007, 1997.
John R. Baumgardner and Woo-Sun Yang, "A finite element multigrid formulation for variable viscosity in 3-D spherical geometry," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 77, (Fall Meeting Supplement), F750, 1996.
Hans-Peter Bunge, Mark A. Richards, and John R. Baumgardner, "The effect of depth-dependent viscosity on the planform of mantle convection," Nature, 379, 436-438, 1996.
Hans-Peter Bunge and John R. Baumgardner, "Mantle convection modeling on parallel virtual machines," Computers in Physics, 9, 207-215, 1995. J. R. Baumgardner, "Thermal runaway in the mantle" (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 75, 687, 1994.
John R. Baumgardner, "3-D numerical investigation of the mantle dynamics associated with the breakup of Pangea," in Flow and Creep in the Solar System: Observations, Modeling, and Theory, D. B. Stone and S. K. Runcorn, eds., NATO ASI Series C, Vol. 391, 207-224, 1993.
John Baumgardner, "3-D numerical investigation of the mantle dynamics associated with the breakup of Pangea," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 73, 1992 Fall Meeting Abstract Volume, 576-577, 1992.
M. A. Moreno, G. Schubert, J. Baumgardner, M. G. Kivelson, and D. A. Paige, "Io's volcanic and sublimation atmospheres," Icarus, 93, 63-81, 1991.
John R. Baumgardner, "Application of supercomputers to 3-D mantle convection," in The Physics of the Planets, S. K. Runcorn, ed., John Wiley and Sons, 199-231, 1988.
J. Baumgardner, M. A. Moreno, G. Schubert, and M. G. Kivelson, "Two classes of volcanic eruptions and their corresponding atmospheres on Io," Bull. Am. Astr. Assoc., 19(3), 856, 1987.
John R. Baumgardner, "Three-dimensional treatment of convective flow in the earth's mantle," J. Stat. Phys., 39, 501-511, 1985.
John R. Baumgardner and Paul O. Frederickson, "Icosahedral discretization of the two-sphere," SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 22, 1107-1115, 1985.
Peter Bird and John Baumgardner, "Fault friction, regional stress, and crust-mantle coupling in southern California from finite element models," J. Geophys. Res., 89, No. B3, 1932-1944, 1984.
John R. Baumgardner and Paul O. Frederickson, "Three-dimensional treatment of mantle convection," (abstract) Eos, Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 63, 1105, 1982.
Dr. Baumgardner is one of the Geophyscists involved in the radioisotope research that I mentioned in my last post. He obviously does a LOT of research into areas that do NOT have "as its main goal disproving mainstream science, especially evolution."
Another example of a creation scientist involved in the radioisotope study is Dr. Keith Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics, University of California. He is currently professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton. The list of his accomplisments is as equally impressive as Dr. Baumgardners.

Solas, old boy – I may owe you an apology. :teeth:

Perhaps the problem in my charge is that the term “creation scientist” has no accepted definition. Both of these gentlemen are creatists and both are scientists, but their scientific publications do not deal with their religious beliefs, nor are they geared to support creation. (Of course within the creationist world and in creation publications they do)

Baumgardner’s current research interests are:
1. Three-dimensional numerical simulation of planetary mantle dynamics, global climate change, and nonlinear rheological behavior.

2. Development of efficient hydrodynamics methods, suitable for 3-D, both explicit and implicit, for massively parallel supercomputers.

You are correct that he is a highly respected scientist in his field. And with good reason. He makes no attempt to publish his creationist arguments in mainstream science articles. He limits his creation-science theories to appropriate audiences. His integrity within both circles is well known. I believe that he holds to the notion that decay rates used in radiocarbon dating have changed dramatically throughout history. Although this is certainly a minority view, I do not challenge his research. He is not involved in debunking evolution but concentrates on trying to prove a global cataclysm akin to the Flood.

I grant Wanser the same level of legitimacy. His field is in fiber optics and so I withdraw my claim that he is out to disprove evolution. He is also published in peer reviewed journals. Regarding his personal beliefs, I’m aware of his contribution to the book Six Days - Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. (to which Baumgardner also contributed) Wanser has also kept his science publications and his creationist beliefs separate and thus enjoys the respect of his peers.

Solas:

However, I fail to see your point. What is wrong with Dr. Baumgardner, who obviously is HIGHLY qualified in his field of Geophysics, ALSO doing ACTUAL scientific research into radioisotope dating from a creationist perspective? I find it commendable that he is refusing to operate on, what many evolutionists claim is, "blind faith" and is instead taking a scientific approach to the issue by creating a hypothesis, from the creationist perspective, and then testing that hypothesis with real-world data?

Nothing, when it's done with the kind of high level work that Baumgardener and Wanser have done.

Incidentally, (and only slightly off topic) don’t tell Soc, but in researching these two scientists I came across an article in AiG that I think is perhaps the biggest argument for its efforts to legitimize itself. It’s a critique of a fairly recent book (not connected to either Baumgardener or Wanser) which clearly demonstrates AiG’s intention to expose “fringe” creation ideas and methodologies. I recommend it to both sides of the creation/evolution debate. There is some excellent information here.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0113peterson.asp

[TheFiveSolas]

Woman,

And once again I appreciate your comments. :thumb: :cheers: