Hi Archaeologist,
I think it would help the discussion if you could resolve what looks like a contradiction. In your opening post you said you would show how creation qualifies as secular science:
archaeologist in Message 1 writes:
This work will not be used to explore those options rather it will use the current secular principles and rules to show that act of creation can and should be considered science.
But then you seem to have an odd opinion of what the "secular principles and rules" of science are. For instance, in
Message 42 you say you don't believe science is responsible for technological innovation:
archaeologist in Message 42 writes:
bluescat48 writes:
If we followed your views I would not be typing on this keyboard or viewing the monitor, since they never would have been invented
again i would disagree as science did not invent those things. they came about from viewing older , similar versions that were the product of the God-given intelligence men possess. science had nothing to do with it.
And here in this message you say you think science should have different rules:
i propose new rules--truth and error/ right and wrong for all of science...
Unlike what you stated in your opening post, you now seem intent on demonstrating that current approaches to science are invalid and that creation follows a different but demonstrably better approach.
Could you please clarify which one it is you're trying to do? The people you're discussing with have a right to know whether you're trying to do what you said in your opening post (the one I judged fit for promotion), or what you've said more recently.
Please, no replies to this message.
-- | Percy |
| EvC Forum Director |