quote:
Originally posted by Jet:
... debaters on the evo side do not limit themselves to the scientific arena. They like to claim that they do but exactly the opposite is true. True science is often abandoned to maintain the evolutionist argument. Those who deny this either are not paying attention, or are willing trying to mislead someone.
Examples would be nice. It could be refreshing to actually agree on something.
[b] [QUOTE]
Also, I have long contended that all evolutionists, at least all that I have been exposed to, are indeed creationists. They may or may not be willing to be classified as IDers, but as far as being creationists, there is no doubt. For most, abiogenesis is the creator, and with the acceptance of a creator you are automatically qualified as a creationists.
[/b][/QUOTE]
The difference being, abiogenesis is theorized as a ‘process’ that began with inanimate organic compounds and resulted in metabolizing cells that reproduced. Nothing was created. A process was started.
You may also notice that no one attributes the creation of the universe to abiogenesis either. So you may believe scientists are ‘creationists’ if it gives you comfort. Being merely a belief, you are not required to substantiate it to anyone else’s satisfaction. For that matter, you may pretend scientists are plastic soap dishes who control the weather on Jovian satellites with an electric train.
[b] [QUOTE]
And as to supernatural, you seem to have some neo-understanding of the term. Supernatural events can indeed be observed with the senses. Their observance does not negate the fact that they are supernatural.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Ah.you mean their ‘alleged’ observance.
[b] [QUOTE]
A comet streaking across the sky is not a supernatural event. It is viewed with the eyes, and noted as an observable event. It may be regarded as spectacular, but not supernautral.
However, a comet streaking across the sky, and then by the power of Almighty God, is made to stop in its place, remain motionless for a time, then descend to the earth, resting on the surface of the oceans for a period of time, then again ascending into the outer heavens and then finally made to go backwards along the same course from which it came, this is completely supernatural, even though it also is observable. To somehow claim that this observance is not supernatural but rather is now a "natural" occurance simply because it has been observed, it to have a skewed and erroneous understanding of the term "supernatural" in the extreme sense.
[/b][/QUOTE]
First of all, you didn’t present an example, but a hypothetical — that is unless this said event really WAS observed.
Secondly, why should we pretend an event is supernatural simply because we observe behavior not previously understood ? In your hypothetical, there may be hundreds of rational explanations:
-Extra-terrestrials were playing with a massive yo-yo
-It was home-movie night on the International Space Station and the projector was pointed out the window.
-the entire crowd at an outdoor Rock concert ignored the warnings: Do not eat the purple acid
An observance is just that: an observance. It isn’t a conclusively supernatural until all rational explanations have been considered and then falsified. Even then — science cannot conclude it was supernatural. It doesn’t have the ability to detect and evaluate anything outside of nature. If you are determined to document verified Supernatural activity, you’ll have to use something other than science to do so. That would be like trying to cut open a hole in the sun with a pair of scissors as you stood on the ground.
If you want to pretend that certain phenomena is supernatural, just because you aren’t interested in rational answers, then you’ve just cheapened the whole concept. I haven’t figured out how Santa Claus can visit every house on earth in the span on a single night. He’d have to reach speeds unattainable by KNOWN flying reindeer.and even if they could go that fast — they'd disintegrate in a nanosecond from the aerodynamic friction.
Yup. That must be supernatural.
[b] [QUOTE]
Were this phenomenom a repeatable occurance with no outside interference from the Almighty, then yes, I would agree it is within the realm of natural.(It would also require a rewrite of the laws of physics).
[/b][/QUOTE]
Or just a new understanding.
[b] [QUOTE]
The very act of intervention by the Almighty, denying and negating the natural laws of time, space, motion, gravity, physics, etc. demands its' classification as a supernatural, .
[/b][/QUOTE]
What very acts of intervention by the Almighty ?
You mean like my Santa Claus example ? Do you agree that the Almighty and Santa Claus are equally valid, supernatural entities ? What about Elvis ?
You speak as if acts of divine intervention have been documented, fully verified and enjoy universal agreement in the scientific community. You can’t use ancient sacred text to substantiate an ‘alleged’ supernatural event in the past. These texts were written by ignorant men, no matter their inspiration.
Yeah, I may not understand the supernatural, but you’re foundering on reality.
[b] [QUOTE]
though observable, event. When the natural laws are superceded by a supernatural being, that my friend, "IS" completely supernatural, observed or not.
[/b][/QUOTE]
That makes as much sense as
If it’s supernatural — then it must be supernatural. You are implying that such things are real, without bothering to substantiate them.
But what value are meaningless hypotheticals ? We could sit around all day long and suppose all sorts of unlikely events. What’s the point ?
-If - something is supernatural, it supercedes nature.
Boy, that’s a
BIG if. Big, but virtually worthless as an explanation. What’s the difference between that hypothetical and these:
If things weren’t the same, they’d be different If my Aunt Martha had a mustache, She’d be my uncle Ralph.
Yes, I suppose it could be true.but so what ? Where is the value of knowing something so meaningless ?
What would it explain ?
Your examples offer nothing to science or to the understanding of alleged supernatural events.
On the other hand, if you were to develop some process by which we might scientifically investigate, evaluate and verify alleged supernatural events — THAT would be something of value.
LOL but that’s the same as saying:
If things weren’t the same, they’d be different
Well, they ARE the same. They aren’t different. Aunt Martha ISN’T Uncle Ralph.
Simply wishing there is a God, or a Santa Claus.or supernatural events doesn’t make them so.
So until there is tangible evidence to suggest there is a supernatural, the only reason to reject science and rational explanations for these unknown events, would be to adhere to a religious agenda.
and that ain’t science.
jeff
------------------
"Freedom of Religion" equates to Freedom -FROM- those religions we find unbelievable.