quote:
Originally posted by TrueCreation:
1)I see what your saying, though since we cannot experiment on the supernatural or observe it, we can get no information out of it, thus is a simple statement as to say 'Goddidit' and end it there.
2)Yes I agree, though this does not mean it is correct, it could be a far cry from what actually happend.
3)Because of its scale of vagueness it is simple, we cannot experiment on anything with the supernatural, thus there is no data and you resolve to the statment that well, 'goddidit'.
3)Of course, that is why creation science is science. But anyways, what was the topic we were discussing subfacing?
1)But you said yourself that you can have no information about the supernatural. Ergo any appeal to the supernatural muddies the waters. Hence a theory rested upon the supernatural is MORE complex than a theory that excludes the supernatural....
2)You got a better theory than charged particles from the solar wind interacting with the Earths magnetic field? Hey how about you advance a competing theory involving the supernatural and we can see which is simpler....
Vague is not simple, vague is by nature unspecified and complex, if it were simple it could not be vague....
3)Look back at your post pal you said 'I use naturalistic phenomena to explain what we observe in science today'. Most people do the exact opposite they use science to explain phenomena....
A phenomena is an event, it happens, it doesn`t explain anything, in fact it requires an explanation to be understood. Thus most people use science to explain phenomena rather than the other way round...
To put it mathmaticaly in the sentence "I use naturalistic science to explain what we observe in phenomena today" phenomena and science are non-comutative....
[This message has been edited by joz, 01-28-2002]