ford nut
Local nut case
Palin must believe in polls thats why she is in Virginia.
OMG
She is insane
A view from the center.......OK left center
- Thread starter Mavrick
- Start date
Palin must believe in polls thats why she is in Virginia.
OMG
We have already had that debate in another thread. I am not going to go down that path with you here because it would distract too much from the focus of this thread.
But science is trying to supress ID and claim it is simply expecting ID to prove itself scientifically. They do so by raising the goalposts. They don't allow ID studies to be peer reviews, then claim that it is not proven science because it has not been peer reviewed. They redefine science to exclude ID then claim that that ID cannot meet the definition of science. These (and many other) tactics used by the scientific community effectively raise the bar to an unrealistic and unreachable level. It is a dishonest tactic that is ment to avoid any debate over ID and darwinism and to supress ID.
Outside of your mere assertions to the contrary, nothing you cite in that post show that the geocentric view originated and was based in any religion. All that is shown is that it was supported by the Church and people in the Church worked to supress heliocentrism.
So you have demonstrated a corrupt church, congradulations. But you have yet to show that the geocentric view originated with religion, or even the institutions of religion. Considering that was the original claim, that is what you need to prove or disprove. Everything else is irrelevant to proving that and is a waste of time.
Remember, I am attacking the conclusion, not the premise. You are focusing on the premise. The conclusion does not follow the premise, which is what I am pointing out. It is not a red herring or non sequiter to show how an argument is flawed. The other ways that the the conclusion can be reached without the premise are very relevant to showing that the conclusion does not follow the premise.
I also said that Lincoln Reagan and the Framers did not discover anything to change society. You are mischaracterising me.
Lets not get into another debate on darwinism vs. ID here (and the surrounding issues). Those tend to get pretty epic and belong in another thread. Besides, every thing that can and needs to be said on that issue in this forum has already been covered ad nausseum in the Expelled thread.
It does look like you think of them as weak individuals and are condescending toward them. The Einstein quote you agreed to pretty well shows that. You called religion a "handicap". It is rather clear you view people of faith as having some sort of mental handicap.
There is nothing wrong with showing one's faith in a campaign. It is very telling about a person in a number of ways.
Besides, identity politics is pretty common today. Many women were supporter Hillary (and are now supporting Palin) due to her gender. The same is true for much of the black community in supporting Obama. And all those people are basing it on being able to identify with the candidate.
That is not neccessarily absurd, either. If a candidate has that in common for you, and that is an important issue for you, you are going to be more inclined to support them due to the fact that they are going to work to support issues favorable to that identification. Candidates with faith are generally not going to support legislation that restricts religion; Female candidates are generally not going to support any agenda restrictive to women; a black candidate is generally not going to support an agenda that works against blacks. Being a part of that community, they all have a stake in that community and are not far removed from it (as most politicians seem to be).
So it is not absurd to play up the faith angle in an election. Also, to remain competitive in an election you need to play up any positive angle, no matter how superficial. That is the nature of campaign's today.
Also, playing up faith for a candidate does give that candidate the appearance of being a moral person, even if it is only an appearance. It helps them seem more trustworthy. So it is not aburd or disdainful to play up faith.
She already has the republican base vote locked up.
They're not the ones she needs to court.
Maybe she just loves to see herself applauded.
Your statement suggests you find her faith "superficial"
and that she only appears trustworthy.
I think she's the real thing and not just cynically conning the base by telling them what they want to hear.
I just think she puts too much faith in her "faith" to bring her votes
outside the republican base.
If anything it puts a lot of people off who may otherwise consider her.
Earnest but not particularly shrewd.
That is a good one shag...
But true. Not all women are supporting either of them purely because of identity politics, and not all female hillary supporters are supporting Palin. But enough are, and enough, in both cases are basing their support, in large part on identity politics.
Right now, it is as much about energizing the base as attracting new votes. In fact, this close to election day, I would say it is more about energizing the base so as to get out the vote.
the base of the conservative party has no love for McCain, so Palin is the one to energize the base; and she has done an exceptional job at that. That has been clear since her speech at the convention.
Oh, no I think her faith is very real. She does come across in her words and her actions as, if nothing else, a very humble and genuine person. Two qualities that are almost always present in the Christians I know (pastors, and other parts of the church "elite" excluded). The Christian views she espouses are consistent with her actions as governor, so it doesn't seem that it is just for show.
The superficial comment is more directed at the many liberal politicians (and some republicans) who give lip-service to having faith but support policy that is antathema to religion. Religious gestures are token gestures at best for these people. So claims of faith by them are purely superficial, and ment as nothing more then self-aggrandizement.
Actually, to many it is very refreshing. You hear and see superficial religious gestures from politicians who upon closer examination are clearly not religious people and share your condescending view of people of faith. Since most; elitists, the media, hollywood and college professors share the same view as you (though they would never admit it), so that view is what is echoed more and given more credence through shear verbosity.
However, most voters don't share that view of religion and don't view Palin's faith (or her playing up of that faith) as a negative. They view it as a neutral or a positive. Remember, the american voter is typically center-right.
Matters like this come down to perception.
While it is not overly logical in drawing a conclusion about the majority of the country, I will point out a personal fact...
The only people who I have met or talked to who don't like Palin for her faith (or the playing up of her faith) are people who are either ignorantly distrusting of religion in general, or are adamant athiests who hate religion and view people of faith as stupid and incapable of critical thought.
One of these athiests even made an argument to me (and has written papers in college) that it was immoral for churches to exist! He claimed he could morally justify killing Christians!!
Obviously a dispicable human being...
Well, I know hundreds of hillary supporters - at least, and not one of the ones I know will be crossing to McCain/Palin
I heard of one, through the grapevine, that was going over to the other side because of Palin.
Someday you might get it - we weren't voting for hillary because she was a woman - we were voting for her because she was a good candidate.
As the SNL skit stated very well - "I didn't want a woman in the White House, I wanted to be in the White House," Hillary (Amy) to Palin (Tina)...
Well, I know hundreds of hillary supporters - at least, and not one of the ones I know will be crossing to McCain/Palin
I heard of one, through the grapevine, that was going over to the other side because of Palin.
Someday you might get it - we weren't voting for hillary because she was a woman - we were voting for her because she was a good candidate.
As the SNL skit stated very well - "I didn't want a woman in the White House, I wanted to be in the White House," Hillary (Amy) to Palin (Tina)...
I never said that most female hillary supporters were supporting Palin; only that a lot of them were.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
1The book of the revolutions of the luminaries of heaven, according to their respective classes, their respective powers, their respective periods, their respective names, the places where they commence their progress, and their respective months, which Uriel, the holy angel who was with me, explained to me; he who conducted them. The whole account of them, according to every year of the world for ever, until a new work shall be effected, which will be eternal.
2This is the first law of the luminaries. The sun and the light arrive at the gates of heaven, which are on the east, and on the west of it at the western gates of heaven.
3I beheld the gates whence the sun goes forth; and the gates where the sun sets;
4In which gates also the moon rises and sets; and I beheld the conductors of the stars, among those who precede them; six gates were at the rising, and six at the setting of the sun.
5All these respectively, one after another, are on a level; and numerous windows are on the right and on the left sides of those gates.
6First proceeds forth that great luminary, which is called the sun; the orb of which is as the orb of heaven, the whole of it being replete with splendid and flaming fire.
7Its chariot, where it ascends, the wind blows.
8The sun sets in heaven, and, returning by the north, to proceed towards the east, is conducted so as to enter by that gate, and illuminate the face of heaven.
9In the same manner it goes forth in the first month by the great gate.
10It goes forth through the fourth of those six gates, which are at the rising of the sun.
11And in the fourth gate, through which the sun with the moon proceeds, in the first part of it, (76) there are twelve open windows; from which issues out a flame, when they are opened in their proper periods.
(76) Through which…part of it. Or, "from which the sun rises in the first month" (Knibb, p. 168).
12When the sun rises in heaven, it goes forth through this fourth gate thirty days, and by the fourth gate in the west of heaven on a level with it descends.
13During that period the day is lengthened from the day, and the night curtailed from the night for thirty days. And then the day is longer by two parts than the night.
14The day is precisely ten parts, and the night is eight.
15The sun goes forth through this fourth gate, and sets in it, and turns to the fifth gate during thirty days; after which it proceeds from, and sets in, the fifth gate.
16Then the day becomes lengthened by a second portion, so that it is eleven parts: while the night becomes shortened, and is only seven parts.
17The sun now returns to the east, entering into the sixth gate, and rising and setting in the sixth gate thirty-one days, on account of its signs.
18At that period the day is longer than the night, being twice as long as the night; and become twelve parts;
19But the night is shortened, and becomes six parts. Then the sun rises up, that the day may be shortened, and the night lengthened.
20And the sun returns toward the east entering into the sixth gate, where it rises and sets for thirty days.
21When that period is completed, the day becomes shortened precisely one part, so that it is eleven parts, while the night is seven parts.
22Then the sun goes from the west, from that sixth gate, and proceeds eastwards, rising in the fifth gate for thirty days, and setting again westwards in the fifth gate of the west.
23At that period the day becomes shortened two parts; and is ten parts, while the night is eight parts.
24Then the sun goes from the fifth gate, as it sets in the fifth gate of the west; and rises in the fourth gate for thirty-one days, on account of its signs, setting in the west.
25At that period the day is made equal with the night; and, being equal with it, the night becomes nine parts, and the day nine parts.
26Then the sun goes from that gate, as it sets in the west; and returning to the east proceeds by the third gate for thirty days, setting in the west at the third gate.
27At that period the night is lengthened from the day during thirty mornings, and the day is curtailed from the day during thirty days; the night being ten parts precisely, and the day eight parts.
28The sun now goes from the third gate, as it sets in the third gate in the west; but returning to the east, it proceeds by the second gate of the east for thirty days.
29In like manner also it sets in the second gate in the west of heaven.
30At that period the night is eleven parts, and the day seven parts.
31Then the sun goes at that time from the second gate, as it sets in the second gate in the west; but returns to the east, proceeding by the first gate, for thirty-one days.
32And sets in the west in the first gate.
33At that period that night is lengthened as much again as the day.
34It is twelve parts precisely, while the day is six parts.
35The sun has thus completed its beginnings, and a second time goes round from these beginnings.
36Into that first gate it enters for thirty days, and sets in the west, in the opposite part of heaven.
37At that period the night is contracted in its length a fourth part, that is, one portion, and becomes eleven parts.
38The day is seven parts.
39Then the sun returns, and enters into the second gate of the east.
40It returns by these beginnings thirty days, rising and setting.
41At that period the night is contracted in its length. It becomes ten parts, and the day eight parts. Then the sun goes from that second gate, and sets in the west; but returns to the east, and rises in the east, in the third gate, thirty-one days, setting in the west of heaven.
42At that period the night becomes shortened. It is nine parts. And the night is equal with the day. The year is precisely three hundred and sixty-four days.
43The lengthening of the day and night, and the contraction of the day and night, are made to differ from each other by the progress of the sun.
44By means of this progress the day is daily lengthened, and the night greatly shortened.
45This is the law and progress of the sun, and its turning when it turns back, turning during sixty days, (77) and going forth. This is the great everlasting luminary, that which he names the sun for ever and ever.
(77) That is, it is sixty days in the same gates, viz. Thirty days twice every year (Laurence, p. 97).
46This also is that which goes forth a great luminary, and which is named after its peculiar kind, as God commanded.
47And thus it goes in and out, neither slackening nor resting; but running on in its chariot by day and by night. It shines with a seventh portion of light from the moon; (78) but the dimensions of both are equal.
and if you follow this, you'd probably lend yourself to believe the world is flat. this is an excerpt from the book of enoch shag. shall i quote from the bible?
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing"(Job 26:7).
"The LORD (JESUS) reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished (stabilized), that it CANNOT BE MOVED" (Psalm 93:1).
"Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved" (I Chronicles16:30).
Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
quote from shag:Actually, the idea of the sun revolving around the earth doesn't come from religion; it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. You are once again making a specious argument; this time by attributing a wrong scientific view to religion.
Outside of your mere assertions to the contrary, nothing you cite in that post show that the geocentric view originated and was based in any religion. All that is shown is that it was supported by the Church and people in the Church worked to supress heliocentrism.
You weren't saying anything about the church supressing anything. You were claiming that the view that the geocentric view comes from religion. Nothing you have offered shows that. The closest you have come is to show that the Catholic Church at the time did justify the view through a certian interpretation of scripture, but that doesn't show that the idea came from religion.
all these things are found in scripture, backed by the catholic church. ask fossten. the bible is truth. so a certain interpretation can only be the literal one, correct?
2This is the first law of the luminaries. The sun and the light arrive at the gates of heaven, which are on the east, and on the west of it at the western gates of heaven.
3I beheld the gates whence the sun goes forth; and the gates where the sun sets;
4In which gates also the moon rises and sets; and I beheld the conductors of the stars, among those who precede them; six gates were at the rising, and six at the setting of the sun.
5All these respectively, one after another, are on a level; and numerous windows are on the right and on the left sides of those gates.
6First proceeds forth that great luminary, which is called the sun; the orb of which is as the orb of heaven, the whole of it being replete with splendid and flaming fire.
7Its chariot, where it ascends, the wind blows.
8The sun sets in heaven, and, returning by the north, to proceed towards the east, is conducted so as to enter by that gate, and illuminate the face of heaven.
9In the same manner it goes forth in the first month by the great gate.
10It goes forth through the fourth of those six gates, which are at the rising of the sun.
11And in the fourth gate, through which the sun with the moon proceeds, in the first part of it, (76) there are twelve open windows; from which issues out a flame, when they are opened in their proper periods.
(76) Through which…part of it. Or, "from which the sun rises in the first month" (Knibb, p. 168).
12When the sun rises in heaven, it goes forth through this fourth gate thirty days, and by the fourth gate in the west of heaven on a level with it descends.
13During that period the day is lengthened from the day, and the night curtailed from the night for thirty days. And then the day is longer by two parts than the night.
14The day is precisely ten parts, and the night is eight.
15The sun goes forth through this fourth gate, and sets in it, and turns to the fifth gate during thirty days; after which it proceeds from, and sets in, the fifth gate.
16Then the day becomes lengthened by a second portion, so that it is eleven parts: while the night becomes shortened, and is only seven parts.
17The sun now returns to the east, entering into the sixth gate, and rising and setting in the sixth gate thirty-one days, on account of its signs.
18At that period the day is longer than the night, being twice as long as the night; and become twelve parts;
19But the night is shortened, and becomes six parts. Then the sun rises up, that the day may be shortened, and the night lengthened.
20And the sun returns toward the east entering into the sixth gate, where it rises and sets for thirty days.
21When that period is completed, the day becomes shortened precisely one part, so that it is eleven parts, while the night is seven parts.
22Then the sun goes from the west, from that sixth gate, and proceeds eastwards, rising in the fifth gate for thirty days, and setting again westwards in the fifth gate of the west.
23At that period the day becomes shortened two parts; and is ten parts, while the night is eight parts.
24Then the sun goes from the fifth gate, as it sets in the fifth gate of the west; and rises in the fourth gate for thirty-one days, on account of its signs, setting in the west.
25At that period the day is made equal with the night; and, being equal with it, the night becomes nine parts, and the day nine parts.
26Then the sun goes from that gate, as it sets in the west; and returning to the east proceeds by the third gate for thirty days, setting in the west at the third gate.
27At that period the night is lengthened from the day during thirty mornings, and the day is curtailed from the day during thirty days; the night being ten parts precisely, and the day eight parts.
28The sun now goes from the third gate, as it sets in the third gate in the west; but returning to the east, it proceeds by the second gate of the east for thirty days.
29In like manner also it sets in the second gate in the west of heaven.
30At that period the night is eleven parts, and the day seven parts.
31Then the sun goes at that time from the second gate, as it sets in the second gate in the west; but returns to the east, proceeding by the first gate, for thirty-one days.
32And sets in the west in the first gate.
33At that period that night is lengthened as much again as the day.
34It is twelve parts precisely, while the day is six parts.
35The sun has thus completed its beginnings, and a second time goes round from these beginnings.
36Into that first gate it enters for thirty days, and sets in the west, in the opposite part of heaven.
37At that period the night is contracted in its length a fourth part, that is, one portion, and becomes eleven parts.
38The day is seven parts.
39Then the sun returns, and enters into the second gate of the east.
40It returns by these beginnings thirty days, rising and setting.
41At that period the night is contracted in its length. It becomes ten parts, and the day eight parts. Then the sun goes from that second gate, and sets in the west; but returns to the east, and rises in the east, in the third gate, thirty-one days, setting in the west of heaven.
42At that period the night becomes shortened. It is nine parts. And the night is equal with the day. The year is precisely three hundred and sixty-four days.
43The lengthening of the day and night, and the contraction of the day and night, are made to differ from each other by the progress of the sun.
44By means of this progress the day is daily lengthened, and the night greatly shortened.
45This is the law and progress of the sun, and its turning when it turns back, turning during sixty days, (77) and going forth. This is the great everlasting luminary, that which he names the sun for ever and ever.
(77) That is, it is sixty days in the same gates, viz. Thirty days twice every year (Laurence, p. 97).
46This also is that which goes forth a great luminary, and which is named after its peculiar kind, as God commanded.
47And thus it goes in and out, neither slackening nor resting; but running on in its chariot by day and by night. It shines with a seventh portion of light from the moon; (78) but the dimensions of both are equal.
and if you follow this, you'd probably lend yourself to believe the world is flat. this is an excerpt from the book of enoch shag. shall i quote from the bible?
"He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing"(Job 26:7).
"The LORD (JESUS) reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished (stabilized), that it CANNOT BE MOVED" (Psalm 93:1).
"Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved" (I Chronicles16:30).
Joshua 10:12-13
Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, "Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon." And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day.
Psalms 19:4-6
yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has set a tent for the sun, which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber, and like a strong man runs his course with joy. Its rising is from the end of the heavens, and its circuit to the end of them; and there is nothing hid from its heat.
Ecclesiastes 1:5
The sun rises and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises.
quote from shag:Actually, the idea of the sun revolving around the earth doesn't come from religion; it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. You are once again making a specious argument; this time by attributing a wrong scientific view to religion.
Outside of your mere assertions to the contrary, nothing you cite in that post show that the geocentric view originated and was based in any religion. All that is shown is that it was supported by the Church and people in the Church worked to supress heliocentrism.
You weren't saying anything about the church supressing anything. You were claiming that the view that the geocentric view comes from religion. Nothing you have offered shows that. The closest you have come is to show that the Catholic Church at the time did justify the view through a certian interpretation of scripture, but that doesn't show that the idea came from religion.
all these things are found in scripture, backed by the catholic church. ask fossten. the bible is truth. so a certain interpretation can only be the literal one, correct?
SHAG: But science is trying to supress ID and claim it is simply expecting ID to prove itself scientifically. They do so by raising the goalposts. They don't allow ID studies to be peer reviews, then claim that it is not proven science because it has not been peer reviewed. They redefine science to exclude ID then claim that that ID cannot meet the definition of science. These (and many other) tactics used by the scientific community effectively raise the bar to an unrealistic and unreachable level. It is a dishonest tactic that is ment to avoid any debate over ID and darwinism and to supress ID.
science isn't raising any goalposts. that's a fallacy that you keep perpetuating. it has certain procedures to follow that id refuses to oblige by. until it follows the guide lines of science, it will just be what it is. whacko science. or more politely, pseudo science.
just because they call it science, doesn't mean it is.
science isn't raising any goalposts. that's a fallacy that you keep perpetuating. it has certain procedures to follow that id refuses to oblige by. until it follows the guide lines of science, it will just be what it is. whacko science. or more politely, pseudo science.
just because they call it science, doesn't mean it is.
Ahh... the old hrmwrm wall 'o' text post....
You are pretty good at taking quotes out of context. Besides, all you have shown is that there are scripture's that can viewed as supporting a geocentric view. It doesn't show that the idea originated from scripture.
Most all those quotes are simply using the nomenclature of the sun rising and setting that is still used today. Almost no one today believes in a geocentric view, but almost everyone describes the sun as rising and setting. Your making another specious argument.
And if you want to debate ID, use the appropriate thread, we are rehashing the stuff here. But I don't see how the scientific community attempting to redefine science to exclude ID is not in some way moving the goalposts. Specifically it is setting up a false dilemma (through equivocation) to move the goalposts.
You are pretty good at taking quotes out of context. Besides, all you have shown is that there are scripture's that can viewed as supporting a geocentric view. It doesn't show that the idea originated from scripture.
Most all those quotes are simply using the nomenclature of the sun rising and setting that is still used today. Almost no one today believes in a geocentric view, but almost everyone describes the sun as rising and setting. Your making another specious argument.
And if you want to debate ID, use the appropriate thread, we are rehashing the stuff here. But I don't see how the scientific community attempting to redefine science to exclude ID is not in some way moving the goalposts. Specifically it is setting up a false dilemma (through equivocation) to move the goalposts.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Have any of you seen hrmwrm and Mick Jagger in the same place at the same time? :shifty:
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
You forget, there is an entire organization of Hillary supporters who are backing McCain, and no less than Lynn Forrest de Rothschild did the entire cable news circuit telling everybody why McCain was the right choice. So laugh it up all you want.
Well, I know hundreds of hillary supporters - at least, and not one of the ones I know will be crossing to McCain/Palin
I heard of one, through the grapevine, that was going over to the other side because of Palin.
Someday you might get it - we weren't voting for hillary because she was a woman - we were voting for her because she was a good candidate.
As the SNL skit stated very well - "I didn't want a woman in the White House, I wanted to be in the White House," Hillary (Amy) to Palin (Tina)...
Ahh... the old hrmwrm wall 'o' text post....
You are pretty good at taking quotes out of context. Besides, all you have shown is that there are scripture's that can viewed as supporting a geocentric view. It doesn't show that the idea originated from scripture.
Most all those quotes are simply using the nomenclature of the sun rising and setting that is still used today.
And if you want to debate ID, use the appropriate thread, we are rehashing the stuff here. But I don't see how the scientific community attempting to redefine science to exclude ID is not in some way moving the goalposts. Specifically it is setting up a false dilemma (through equivocation) to move the goalposts.
quotes out of context?
that's your specialty shag.
and reading all that, without posting up the parts of the bible about the pillars and foundations(reference to flat earth), gates on the sides of the earth releasing the sun and moon WOULD leave one to believe a geocentric position. it refers to more than rise and set. as for originating from scripture, isn't that god's word and truth? ask fossten about that one. besides, you stated something totally different
"it comes from the best empirical research and observations (science) of the time. "
you have nothing to say it came from that either. there was heliocentric views at the same time as scripture was written. so it wasn't empirical research and observation of the time.
and i'm not here to debate id, merely to clear your spurious claims. id has had alot of years to put forward what is required to make it a scientific claim, but unfortunately their data is highly manipulated and lacking. science is still the same as it always was. it is not redefining itself to exclude id. you have that quite backwards. id wants to redefine science to fit it. and when you wish to back up your claim, you'd better provide unmitigating proof of claim. this is where id has failed and refuses to comply. those are the facts.
but you are allowed your OPINION, as that is all yours is.
There may have been heleocentric views at the time that that scripture was written...so what? The generally accepted view long before scripture was even conceived was the geocentric one. That remained the case until it was eventually disproven and accepted by the elites in society.
And the geocentric view was based on the best empirical evidence at the time; which mostly amounted to direct observation as there were next to no tools to aid in observing anything. As better tools came along, the geocentric view lost credibility.
For your argument to be true, the scriptures that can be interpreted to support the geocentric view would have had to come about before man was able to look at the stars.
The movement to make methodological naturalism a part of the definition of science is the "redefinition" I am talking about. In regards to looking at the question that both Darwinism and ID try to answer, it effectively redefines the science so that it is unempirical, which is the cornerstone of what defines a science.
Word of advice: "let it go"
from shag "And the geocentric view was based on the best empirical evidence at the time"
"redefines the science so that it is unempirical, which is the cornerstone of what defines a science."
you seem a little confused even within the same post. unempirical(?) is the cornerstone of what defines a sciene? i don't quite know what your getting at here. maybe elaborate on your exact meaning of this.
"The movement to make methodological naturalism a part of the definition of science is the "redefinition" I am talking about"
and by this statement you admit that id is trying to redefine science to suit it's purpose, not that science is redifining itself to exclude id.
"redefines the science so that it is unempirical, which is the cornerstone of what defines a science."
you seem a little confused even within the same post. unempirical(?) is the cornerstone of what defines a sciene? i don't quite know what your getting at here. maybe elaborate on your exact meaning of this.
"The movement to make methodological naturalism a part of the definition of science is the "redefinition" I am talking about"
and by this statement you admit that id is trying to redefine science to suit it's purpose, not that science is redifining itself to exclude id.
Not quite.
The scientific establishment is trying to redefine what qualifies as a science to include methodological naturalism. If that is part of the definition, then any study to discover how life (and various species) came to be is inherently not empirical anymore. Since empirical findings are necessarily at the core of what a science is, that makes any study into how life came to be, unscientific.
But, redefining science to include methodological naturalism would exclude ID as a science.
the scientific method has always been not to include supernatural causes in it's investigation of nature. it is not redefining itself to exclude id. science makes no assumption of whether there is or isn't divinity.this has been a ploy by id proponents to imply science is atheistic in nature.
id wants to redefine science to include supernatural causes within science's scope of understanding. so, you still have it backwards. id will not be accepted as a science if it allows supernatural causation. that is for religion, not science.
id wants to redefine science to include supernatural causes within science's scope of understanding. so, you still have it backwards. id will not be accepted as a science if it allows supernatural causation. that is for religion, not science.
ID doesn't assume supernatural causes, but it doesn't assume purely natural causes either, like methodological naturalism does. ID looks at things purely empirically.
And, no, the scientific method has not always functioned on the premise of methodological naturalism. That is something that has come up (relatively) recently in the scientific community in response to ID.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
I haven't been to Seattle since 1945. At that time, as a child, I lived in Renton for several years. And as I remember the weather, I can't say that Seattle is high on my list of places to visit.
I won't bother to pick your statements apart. I'll only say, generally, "Non Sequitur". Let's just agree to disagree. I am truly sorry we're so far apart both philosophically and spatially. Starbucks would be good.
KS
I won't bother to pick your statements apart. I'll only say, generally, "Non Sequitur". Let's just agree to disagree. I am truly sorry we're so far apart both philosophically and spatially. Starbucks would be good.
KS
"ID doesn't assume supernatural causes, but it doesn't assume purely natural causes either"
you keep arguing this fallacy. the man who started id, phillip johnson, has declared that his intentions were to put god back into creation.
but let's assume you're correct. then if it's not supernatural, then what is it? and what were it's beginnings? to be taken seriously, you have to have a starting point. there is no method, no modus operandi, no nothing. just i see intelligence in design. if it's not supernatural, then you'll have to state what the intelligence is.
and science looks at things empirically, without external influence(or not at least verifiable external influence). without a verifiable external influence, something that can be pointed to and said to be the mechanism of operation, then id is just a cult.
you keep arguing this fallacy. the man who started id, phillip johnson, has declared that his intentions were to put god back into creation.
but let's assume you're correct. then if it's not supernatural, then what is it? and what were it's beginnings? to be taken seriously, you have to have a starting point. there is no method, no modus operandi, no nothing. just i see intelligence in design. if it's not supernatural, then you'll have to state what the intelligence is.
and science looks at things empirically, without external influence(or not at least verifiable external influence). without a verifiable external influence, something that can be pointed to and said to be the mechanism of operation, then id is just a cult.