science vs religion?

[ChristineM]

>>But, assuming that a supernatural God exists without empirical evidence spits in the face of science.<<

Not if one is a creation scientist. Again, a little faith goes a long way.

Don't get me wrong. After God, then we go by science. Anything to do with man, then we use science.

What is a creation scientist? A graduate of a scientific discipline (usually, but sometimes they are known to lie about their qualification's) who has chosen not to follow his scientific training but instead mock it by claiming mythology and faith somehow overrides fact and evidence

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

What is a creation scientist? A graduate of a scientific discipline (usually, but sometimes they are known to lie about their qualification's) who has chosen not to follow his scientific training but instead mock it by claiming mythology and faith somehow overrides fact and evidence

But I have spoken to Jesus. And you likely will claim that I did not
simply because you believe I did not. You cannot claim that my rapture
was not real - because you were NOT there to witness what I witnessed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But I have spoken to Jesus. And you likely will claim that I did not
simply because you believe I did not. You cannot claim that my rapture
was not real - because you were NOT there to witness what I witnessed.

There are countless people that have "spoken to Jesus". Strangely Jesus seems to change his mind quite often. You may believe that you talked to Jesus but others will not believe you if you cannot substantiate your claims. When your claim about what Jesus said is different from what others say that Jesus said how does one decide who is right? There is a saying that applies here. Only one can be right, but all can be wrong.

But you were replying to a claim about the fact that creationists do not do science. Did you have anything to say about that?

 

[ChristineM]

But I have spoken to Jesus. And you likely will claim that I did not
simply because you believe I did not. You cannot claim that my rapture
was not real - because you were NOT there to witness what I witnessed.

And this to do with my post you quoted in what way? Are you a so called creation scientists? No? Although publishing delusion seems to be their trend

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

There are countless people that have "spoken to Jesus". Strangely Jesus seems to change his mind quite often. You may believe that you talked to Jesus but others will not believe you if you cannot substantiate your claims. When your claim about what Jesus said is different from what others say that Jesus said how does one decide who is right? There is a saying that applies here. Only one can be right, but all can be wrong.

But you were replying to a claim about the fact that creationists do not do science. Did you have anything to say about that?

I also cannot substantiate many things that are true. They are true nonetheless.
You cannot substantiate to me that you are a real person, not a bot, hmm?

I never even told you what Jesus said, so how can you decide it is different to
what others say?

As for Creationism and science, well science originated from creationists!
All of the them: Newton, Galileo, Descartes, Darwin - all believed or knew God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I also cannot substantiate many things that are true. They are true nonetheless.
You cannot substantiate to me that you are a real person, not a bot, hmm?

I never even told you what Jesus said, so how can you decide it is different to
what others say?

As for Creationism and science, well science originated from creationists!
All of the them: Newton, Galileo, Descartes, Darwin - all believed or knew God.

Bots do not yet have the sophistication to engage in long debates on forums. They are getting closer, but they are not quite there yet.

And no, creationism is a reaction to the theory of evolution. And you make the error of conflating a belief in god with creationism. None of those scientists could be properly called creationists. I could easily argue that they would accept reality if they were alive today. Galileo went against the teaching of the church and the Bible when he declared that the Earth is not the center of the solar system.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

And this to do with my post you quoted in what way? Are you a so called creation scientists? No? Although publishing delusion seems to be their trend

My experience of Jesus was empirical, not obtained from books.
I was a pantheist - with a sincere dislike for the church (though I did not disagree with
the teaching of Jesus entirely). Now I cannot MAKE Jesus appear to you
same as I cannot make any other being befriend you.

You label it delusion, but you were not present at the experience,
so you are just expressing a belief - not an empirical instance.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Bots do not yet have the sophistication to engage in long debates on forums. They are getting closer, but they are not quite there yet.

And no, creationism is a reaction to the theory of evolution. And you make the error of conflating a belief in god with creationism. None of those scientists could be properly called creationists. I could easily argue that they would accept reality if they were alive today. Galileo went against the teaching of the church and the Bible when he declared that the Earth is not the center of the solar system.

And Jesus went against the church of his day too!!
That is True experience of God. Not blindly following people dressed
in robes carrying symbols and splashing water all over the place.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My experience of Jesus was empirical, not obtained from books.
I was a pantheist - with a sincere dislike for the church (though I did not disagree with
the teaching of Jesus entirely). Now I cannot MAKE Jesus appear to you
same as I cannot make any other being befriend you.

You label it delusion, but you were not present at the experience,
so you are just expressing a belief - not an empirical instance.

Then it was not empirical. Let me help you again:

"
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
synonyms: experiential, practical, heuristic, firsthand, hands-on; "

You may think that you observed something, but since others cannot make the same observations they are not "empirical".

You admitted at the end of your post that your observation was not empirical. Empirical means observable by all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And Jesus went against the church of his day too!!
That is True experience of God. Not blindly following people dressed
in robes carrying symbols and splashing water all over the place.

And that is why science has to be independently verifiable to be science. You may not believe something but that will not stop others from observing the evidence that supports scientific claims.

Perhaps we should go over some basic concepts. You have already demonstrated that you do not understand various terms that you use. We can't have a profitable discussion if you keep making up our own terminology. Language needs agreement on what various terms mean for communication to take place.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Then it was not empirical. Let me help you again:

"
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
"they provided considerable empirical evidence to support their argument"
synonyms: experiential, practical, heuristic, firsthand, hands-on; "

You may think that you observed something, but since others cannot make the same observations they are not "empirical".

You admitted at the end of your post that your observation was not empirical. Empirical means observable by all.

So then the theory of gravitational waves is not empirical because I (everyone) did not experience that experiment?
I have not seen genomes, or mitochondria or pink dolphins.
So according to you - none of those exist.

and besides, more people have claimed to experience Christ, than genes or that
gravitational-wave baloney.

The lunar landings are also (according to you) not empirical because almost nobody
claims to have walked on the moon!

 

[Subduction Zone]

So then the theory of gravitational waves is not empirical because I (everyone) did not experience that experiment?
I have not seen genomes, or mitochondria or pink dolphins.
So according to you - none of those exist.

The experiments are repeatable by anyone that cares to do so. They are empirical.

and besides, more people have claimed to experience Christ, than genes or that
gravitational-wave baloney.

Unsubstantiated claims are worthless in the real world. Scientists can support their claims. Others can do their experiments and observe the same results. The various "I saw Jesus" claims vary, that indicates that they can't all be right. In fact it shows that most are at the very least wrong. The number only harms your claim.

The lunar landings are also (according to you) not empirical because almost nobody
claims to have walked on the moon!

But the evidence can be observed independently. The evidence is empirical.

Once again, let's go over the basics.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Once again, let's go over the basics.

Ok so your 'basics' are that empircal means 'everyone' except when it is not everyone.
Everyone can repent of their sins and find Jesus - that is an empirical claim.
If you have not done so, then you do not do the experiment because you do not believe in it.

If I can prove to you that black-holes are a contradictory paradigm will you consider
doing the Jesus experiment?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so your 'basics' are that empircal means 'everyone' except when it is not everyone.
Everyone can repent of their sins and find Jesus - that is an empirical claim.
If you have not done so, then you do not do the experiment because you do not believe in it.

If I can prove to you that black-holes are a contradictory paradigm will you consider
doing the Jesus experiment?

Anyone that cares to make the effort. If a person refuses to look he can hardly discuss the evidence. And don't give me nonsense about people not asking Jesus with "all of their heart". That would be a tautological claim. Worthless in a debate. The problem is that the countless people that have "talked to Jesus" tells us that these claims are not reliable. If they all agreed and could reliably tell others how to talk to Jesus it would be empirical. But that is not the case.

It also is why religions are faith based and not evidence based. Many theists wish that was not the case, but if there was reliable evidence for a religion we would not have the countless different religions that exist in the world.

 

[Polymath257]

But I have spoken to Jesus. And you likely will claim that I did not
simply because you believe I did not. You cannot claim that my rapture
was not real - because you were NOT there to witness what I witnessed.

Yes, and I have spoken to Gautama. But I recognize my experience as a delusion. Perhaps you should consider the possibility that yours was also.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok so your 'basics' are that empircal means 'everyone' except when it is not everyone.
Everyone can repent of their sins and find Jesus - that is an empirical claim.
If you have not done so, then you do not do the experiment because you do not believe in it.

If I can prove to you that black-holes are a contradictory paradigm will you consider
doing the Jesus experiment?

What is the Jesus experiment? I may have already done it with null results.

As for black holes, the fact that they have been discovered seems to be irrelevant to you.

 

[`mud]

People who speak to people that are not really there.......

well...........only themselves ???

 

[Polymath257]

People who speak to people that are not really there.......

well...........only themselves ???

Hey, it can happen after surgery if the right drugs are used.

 

[james bond]

What is a creation scientist? A graduate of a scientific discipline (usually, but sometimes they are known to lie about their qualification's) who has chosen not to follow his scientific training but instead mock it by claiming mythology and faith somehow overrides fact and evidence

>>CM: What is a creation scientist?<<

A creation scientist is a scientist who believes that God created everything in the beginning and the Bible. They believe the Earth was formed by catastrophism and not uniformitarianism.

>>A graduate of a scientific discipline (usually, but sometimes they are known to lie about their qualification's) who has chosen not to follow his scientific training but instead mock it by claiming mythology and faith somehow overrides fact and evidence<<

I would think you're referring to atheist scientists who do not believe in God and refuse to accept (believe) the supernatural. They are the ones with the mythology. For example, the universe was formed from some natural caused singularity. They believe life just happens and the universe is geared this way, but do not have any evidence that this happens. They have systematically eliminated God from science for no valid scientific reason. If you read up on Charles Lyell who was an atheist and wrote about uniformitarianism, then you would get a picture of how the atheist scientists came to power. Charles Lyell also taught Charles Darwin. The myth is the one based on a two Chuck buck.

Since atheists will not accept evidence that God is true, I would think they will have to learn it the hard way. It will be two Chuck buck the hard way and they lose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

>>CM: What is a creation scientist?<<

A creation scientist is a scientist who believes that God created everything in the beginning and the Bible. They believe the Earth was formed by catastrophism and not uniformitarianism.

So not a scientist then. To actually be a scientist one must follow the scientific method. Almost every creation scientist that I know of has openly stated that they no longer do so.

>>A graduate of a scientific discipline (usually, but sometimes they are known to lie about their qualification's) who has chosen not to follow his scientific training but instead mock it by claiming mythology and faith somehow overrides fact and evidence<<

I would think you're referring to atheist scientists who do not believe in God and refuse to accept (believe) the supernatural. They are the ones with the mythology. For example, the universe was formed from some natural caused singularity. They believe life just happens and the universe is geared this way, but do not have any evidence that this happens. They have systematically eliminated God from science for no valid scientific reason. If you read up on Charles Lyell who was an atheist and wrote about uniformitarianism, then you would get a picture of how the atheist scientists came to power. Charles Lyell also taught Charles Darwin. The myth is the one based on a two Chuck buck.

Why do creationists make such obviously ignorant and incorrect claims? It amounts to a breaking of the Ninth Commandment. If there was evidence for a god scientists would accept it. Sadly for you there is no scientific evidence for your "creator". Would you care to learn what is and what is not scientific evidence? It is a very easy concept to understand.

Since atheists will not accept evidence that God is true, I would think they will have to learn it the hard way. It will be two Chuck buck the hard way and they lose.

Once again, what evidence? I am very sure that you have none since I have yet to meet a creationist that understands the concept.