09 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI am sorry to hear of your misfortune and forgive me for my bad attitude.
Don't worry. I was not offended because I already am rather familiar with his 'manner' (putting it politely).
Incidentally, although I have had a hard time with some extraordinary temporary misfortune with a disastrous house sale and then a disastrous and very badly delayed and disastrous house buy (I was forced by time constants and financial mishap to settle ...[text shortened]... a house to grow all my own food is now totally out the question for at least a year I think.
The Instructor
09 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsactually, it was not exactly a 'choice' for I had nowhere else to live (unless you can call becoming homeless a 'choice' of course).
I did not know that living in a caravan meant he was homeless. I thought it was a choice, like being a hippie, or living in a commune. I am indeed sorry if I misunderstood his comment and seemed insensitive.
The Instructor
09 Jun 13
1 edit
RJHinds
For something to be correctly called “scientific”, it must be rationally based which means it must be either based on either flawless logic (the science of pure mathematics is the best example of that) or logically flawless interpretation of verifiable observation or both ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ).
Since the mere stories and various other baseless/unverifiable claims in the bible or any other religious script are not based on either based on either flawless logic or logically flawless interpretation of verifiable observation or both, they cannot be claimed to be scientific by the definition of 'scientific'. Any theory based on these unscientific claims thus, also, in turn, cannot be correctly claimed to be 'scientific' theories by the definition of 'scientific'.
Thus a “scientific theory based on the biblical account” is a logical contradiction by the definition of 'scientific'.
If you dispute this then explain what exactly you think defines something being 'scientific' if NOT defined as something based on either based on either flawless logic or logically flawless interpretation of verifiable observation or both....
09 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyLet us suppose a manufacturer of a product provided some limited information in writing on how his product was made and how it worked. However, if you did not have full information about it and you were interested in learning more about it, wouldn't it be reasonable and scientific to also consider this written information by the maker in your quest to understand it?
RJHinds
For something to be correctly called “scientific”, it must be rationally based which means it must be either based on either flawless logic (the science of pure mathematics is the best example of that) or logically flawless interpretation of verifiable observation or both ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method ).
Since the mere s ...[text shortened]... wless logic or logically flawless interpretation of verifiable observation or both....
The Instructor
09 Jun 13
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindswhat has that got to do with my question or anything to do with anything mentioned in this thread? instead of answering my question, you just totally change the subject completely by asking a totally irrelevant question. If you want to change the subject completely to one about manufacturing information than I think you should start a new thread about that. But here, lets go back to the subject of what is 'scientific' by answering my question...
Let us suppose a manufacturer of a product provided some limited information in writing on how his product was made and how it worked. However, if you did not have full information about it and you were interested in learning more about it, wouldn't it be reasonable and scientific to also consider this written information by the maker in your quest to understand it?
The Instructor
09 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyYou ought to know by now that is his normal MO.
what has that got to do with my question or anything to do with anything mentioned in this thread? instead of answering my question, you just totally change the subject completely by asking a totally irrelevant question. If you want to change the subject completely to one about manufacturing information than I think you should start a new thread about that. But here, lets go back to the subject of what is 'scientific' by answering my question...
09 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI think it would be reasonable and scientific to also consider this written information by the maker on how his product was made and how it worked in our quest to understand what he made, don't you? That is my answer to what is scientific. In fact, to completely ignore such information would be unscientific.
what has that got to do with my question or anything to do with anything mentioned in this thread? instead of answering my question, you just totally change the subject completely by asking a totally irrelevant question. If you want to change the subject completely to one about manufacturing information than I think you should start a new thread about that. But here, lets go back to the subject of what is 'scientific' by answering my question...
The Instructor
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou mean the BS stories of how water turned into wine and Mo talked to your god via a burning bush? or how the red sea parted or that there was a world wide flood where your insane god decided to punish the entire world of animals just to get to a few badass humans? Get serious. Oh yeah, the world was also created in 7 days, convenient number that we use for days of the week, and JC died and 3 days came back from the dead and then ascended into heaven?
I think it would be reasonable and scientific to also consider this written information by the maker on how his product was made and how it worked in our quest to understand what he made, don't you? That is my answer to what is scientific. In fact, to completely ignore such information would be unscientific.
The Instructor
You talk about ME reading science fiction?
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseYeah. That's it! HalleluYah !!!
You mean the BS stories of how water turned into wine and Mo talked to your god via a burning bush? or how the red sea parted or that there was a world wide flood where your insane god decided to punish the entire world of animals just to get to a few badass humans? Get serious. Oh yeah, the world was also created in 7 days, convenient number that we use fo ...[text shortened]... back from the dead and then ascended into heaven?
You talk about ME reading science fiction?
The Instructor
10 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsI'm surprised, given your religious stance, that you did not add that you will include him in your prayers. So much for your Christian values!
I did not know that living in a caravan meant he was homeless. I thought it was a choice, like being a hippie, or living in a commune. I am indeed sorry if I misunderstood his comment and seemed insensitive.
The Instructor
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by RJHinds
I think it would be reasonable and scientific to also consider this written information by the maker on how his product was made and how it worked in our quest to understand what he made, don't you? That is my answer to what is scientific. In fact, to completely ignore such information would be unscientific.
The Instructor
I think it would be reasonable and scientific to also consider this written information by the maker on how his product was made and how it worked in our quest to understand what he made, don't you?
reasonable, yes. Scientific, no. All that is scientific is reasonable but not all that is reasonable is scientific. What defines something as 'scientific' is NOT merely “ to also consider this written information “. What has merely 'considering' something got to do with what defines 'scientific'? -you can 'consider' something in an irrational unscientific manner and draw illogical conclusions that don't logically follow from their premise thus merely considering something does not make it scientific.
In fact, to completely ignore such information would be unscientific.
ignoring irrelevant/garbage information such as bible stories and other mythology is NOT unscientific. One thing that is unscientific is to deny the scientific facts obtained rationally from evidence and sound scientific method.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by humyI did not say we should ignore scientific facts obtained rationally from evidence and sound scientific method. However, scientists should consider all evidence and not just those parts that fits their worldview as the evilutionists do today. We should also look at the evidence from a creationists world view as well.I think it would be reasonable and scientific to also consider this written information by the maker on how his product was made and how it worked in our quest to understand what he made, don't you?
reasonable, yes. Scientific, no. All that is scientific is reasonable but not all that is reasonable is scientific. What defines something as ...[text shortened]... ny the scientific facts obtained rationally from evidence and sound scientific method.
The Instructor