Gravity versus the Young-Earth Creationists

Of course none of it has been published by Humphreys in the scientific literature. Scientifically speaking, the idea does not exist.CheersJoe Meert

John Paul:
I would guess you mean only the journals YOU (and your ilk) consider scientific literature. It has been published in scientific journals that you don't recognize. But your recognition of lack of is very irrelevant.JM: Once again, it is useful to point out for the lurkers that Humphreys refusal to submit his work for review in the scientific literature is germane to the issue at hand. It seems that no matter how hard something is pounded into your head, you just don't get it. Humphreys science is invisible to the scientific community and the fact that he is arguing with another biblicist about it does not make it good science.CheersJoe Meert

The scientific community is made up of members who do research and submit their results for peer-review. I thought you were a scientist? Humphreys has submitted some articles for review and has been puiblished in the scientific literature. It's just that this particular idea has not been subjected to peer review, nor has it been formally introduced into scientific debate.CheersJoe Meert

JP:Just not ion the journals you recognize.JM: Indeed, I do recognize them for what they are. Science, at its most basic level lets the data lead the way. The 'journals' that Humphreys publishes in do not let the data lead the way. AIG and ICR require that the 'scientists' take an oath that all data must support the bible or the data are wrong. When Humphreys conducts his investigations operating under that philosophy, he is not a scientist and his work ceases to be science.CheersJoe Meert

JP:Just not ion the journals you recognize.JM: Indeed, I do recognize them for what they are. Science, at its most basic level lets the data lead the way. The 'journals' that Humphreys publishes in do not let the data lead the way. AIG and ICR require that the 'scientists' take an oath that all data must support the bible or the data are wrong. When Humphreys conducts his investigations operating under that philosophy, he is not a scientist and his work ceases to be science.CheersJoe Meert

From AIG:By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. From ICR:but it is the position of the Institute that the two are compatible and that all genuine facts of science support the BibleCheersJoe Meert

The irony should be fully understood. JM: Then why don't you understand it? Science operates without supernatural preconceptions because that makes it open to reproof and verification without prejudice. A Muslim can perform the same experiment that a Christian, an atheist and a Buddhist can perform. The results just are and there is no need to force them to conform to someone's interpretation of an ancient text. In contrast, ICR and AIG would reject the findings of the Muslim, the atheist and the Buddhist if the findings disagreed with their (AIG's and ICR's) interpretation of the Bible. There is no need to put on a theological hat when conducting an experiment because the outcome of the experiment and the observations have no real bearing on the theological beliefs of the experimenter.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

JP:But that is wrong. That would be leading the evidence and therefore not objective.

---

JM: Actually your statement is false. Science simply and plainly seeks explanations based on the natural world. One is perfectly free to take those naturalistic explanations and place them in a supernatural philosophy, a theistic philosophy or an intelligent design philosophy. By studying the world in a naturalistic framework, the extension is made to all other philosophies to interpret the findings as they see fit. Rather than being exclusionary, the natural basis of science is inclusionary. I'm surprised that you (being a scientist and all) does not understand that.CheersJoe Meert

JPoesn't that definition seem just a little too limiting? It sure does to meJM: That's your assertion. I believe I showed that, far from being limiting, it is extremely liberating especially compared to philosophically dogmatic positions such as ID or ye-creationism. Heck even the ye-creationists understand the freedom granted them via naturalistic science. They argue all the time that the naturalistic explanation can be interpreted as evidence of creation. Once again, I am surprised that a scientist such as yourself doesn't grasp the freedoms afforded your philosophy via naturalism.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

JP:If someone considers BOTH ideas that would mean that person is more open minded.

---

JM: Umm, that's exactly what I said. Science explains things using naturalistic explanations which can then be fit to your personal philosophy from Zen Buddhist to Wicca no limitations. It bears repeating:

quote:

---

Science simply and plainly seeks explanations based on the natural world. One is perfectly free to take those naturalistic explanations and place them in a supernatural philosophy, a theistic philosophy or an intelligent design philosophy. By studying the world in a naturalistic framework, the extension is made to all other philosophies to interpret the findings as they see fit. Rather than being exclusionary, the natural basis of science is inclusionary.

---

quote:

---

JP:Ya see Meert I have the freedom to consider alternatives

---

JM: Yes, I've made that point as well. That freedom of philosophical interpretation arises because science is approached from a naturalistic perspective. Are you so dense that you can't tell when someone actually agrees with you?

quote:

---

It is you who is pidgeon-holing knowledge.

---

JM: LOL, how so?CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited Joe Meert, 05-04-2004][This message has been edited Joe Meert, 05-04-2004][This message has been edited Joe Meert, 05-04-2004]

Science simply and plainly seeks explanations based on the natural world. One is perfectly free to take those naturalistic explanations and place them in a supernatural philosophy, a theistic philosophy or an intelligent design philosophy. By studying the world in a naturalistic framework, the extension is made to all other philosophies to interpret the findings as they see fit. Rather than being exclusionary, the natural basis of science is inclusionary.

quote:

---

There isn't any naturalistic explanation for the origins of life. Why is un-scientific to look for an explanation elsewhere

---

JM: There is no testable supernatural explanation for the origins of life either. It's not wrong to look elsewhere, or even bad to look elsewhere, it's simply not science. For all your bragging about being a scientist, you sure make some funny assertions.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

JP:That is about as false ofd a statement as one can make.

---

JM: That depends on the context. Intelligent design is not science as is acknowledged by people like Paul Nelson of the Discovery Institute. Ye-creationism is not science as acknowledged by many ye-creationists. You're swimming against the current trying to convince yourself that the are science.

quote:

---

I never bragged about being a scientist. I merely stated it.

---

JM: In that case, I am your president!CheersJoe Meert[This message has been edited Joe Meert, 05-04-2004]