Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

PaulS wrote:
Creationism is a theological perspective, it is not a theory.

Is ID a Scientific theory?

I will accept that it could be a hypothesis, but it sure doesnt rise to the level of a theory.

If you like links, search under "skeptical intelligent design" and you will find plenty of opportunity to play dueling websites. And I think it telling that few without religious motive and agenda have much interest in ID.

Something like with SETI, and the quest for bigfoot, I dont pay much attention to ID, and wont unless they actually find something.

Audie,

in a nutshell, ID just means the universe has a designer. I'm sure within ID there are many different beliefs, some with agendas.

Just like I could say that some people who believe in evolution have an antiGod agenda. That doesn't necessarily mean evolution is antiGod.

All agreed, but that takes it even further from being a theory, dont you think so?

Not if there's a specific testable model.

"If"

Audie wrote:"If"

Hugh Ross has a testable creation model. I'm sure you'll disagree with it, but it is a model.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/080101442 ... 96-6191935

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:"If"

Hugh Ross has a testable creation model. I'm sure you'll disagree with it, but it is a model.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/080101442 ... 96-6191935

That is a link to a book not a model.
What is the model?
Why are you sure I'd disagree with it?

Coz its crap, or coz you think Im intellectually dishonest, or some other reason?

This guy is of course, a minister and a creationist. Is there anyone who is not thus
encumbered who thinks there is a model? A profoundly significant branch of science, if such it is, that is only of interest to committed Christians is sort of an odd thing.

People who approach science with a conclusion before the data are of course, intellectually dishonest in the extreme. They are doing the polar opposite of science.

A similarly qualified but equally dishonest (afaic and all) scientist would be Dr Kurt Wise, who at least says that "if all the evidence in the universe turned against yec, Id still be a yec, as that is what the bible seems to indicate."

What the hell kind of science is that?

So, sure, I am suspicious of this guy, but I've not seen his idea. What is it?

I see a lot in science that I dont trust, and often enough, im right on in my doubts.

This guy is off to a poor start, but, as your book says, wisdom from the mouths of babes. Its the words not the speaker.

I'm sure you'll disagree with it because you disagree with progressive creationism. He's a PC.

This guy is of course, a minister and a creationist. Is there anyone who is not thus
encumbered who thinks there is a model? A profoundly significant branch of science, if such it is, that is only of interest to committed Christians is sort of an odd thing.

I think one has to be some kind of creationist to come up with a creation model.

But before he was a minister and old earth creationist, he was an astrophysicist. I could be biased, but I believ he's a well respected astrophysicist.

People who approach science with a conclusion before the data are of course, intellectually dishonest in the extreme. They are doing the polar opposite of science.

I agree.

Like I said, it's a creation model. I have the book if you want to read it. If you're in the US, pm me your address and I'll mail it to you for free. You can keep it. I don't need it back.

RickD wrote:

I'm sure you'll disagree with it because you disagree with progressive creationism. He's a PC.

Thats a good percent of the reason, but I do like facts / data.

This guy is of course, a minister and a creationist. Is there anyone who is not thus
encumbered who thinks there is a model? A profoundly significant branch of science, if such it is, that is only of interest to committed Christians is sort of an odd thing.

I think one has to be some kind of creationist to come up with a creation model.

Um, that may be. That has layers. But you know, Ein. wasnt a relativityist before he came up with relativity.

But before he was a minister and old earth creationist, he was an astrophysicist. I could be biased, but I believ he's a well respected astrophysicist.

He may be right and he may be wrong. There is tho more than the usual reasons for a bit of suspicion.

You may have read some of Dr Richard Feymnams work? If not, by all maens run dont walk, to get "Surely you'r[youtube] joking[/youtube], Mr Feynman".

One of his observations is that the easiest person to fool is ourselves. Starting with a conclusion is terrible science.

But as OEC or PC does not really affect how one does astrophysics, I guess, Im sure he can do good work there.

People do sometimes stray off the reservation, for good or ill.

You know this hymn?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4LVxJQv5q4

People who approach science with a conclusion before the data are of course, intellectually dishonest in the extreme. They are doing the polar opposite of science.

I agree.

Like I said, it's a creation model. I have the book if you want to read it. If you're in the US, pm me your address and I'll mail it to you for free. You can keep it. I don't need it back.

Thanks for the offer, my reading list at this time is things like torts, contracts, and I just wont be putting any other sort of book on the list for a year and a half at least.

[/quote]

Ok. But if you change your mind, as long as I still have the book, the offer still stands.

And Audie, what do you mean by this:

Starting with a conclusion is terrible science.

Are you suggesting that Hugh Ross starts science with a conclusion?

RickD wrote:Ok. But if you change your mind, as long as I still have the book, the offer still stands.

And Audie, what do you mean by this:

Starting with a conclusion is terrible science.

Are you suggesting that Hugh Ross starts science with a conclusion?

Well, all science starts with A conclusion, and that is that somehow, there is an answer, there is A conclusion.

RickD wrote:Ok. But if you change your mind, as long as I still have the book, the offer still stands.

Thanks, I do appreciate the offer.

And Audie, what do you mean by this:

Starting with a conclusion is terrible science.

Are you suggesting that Hugh Ross starts science with a conclusion?

Id say so, in that a preacher and an avowed creationist is starting with the conclusion that a god set things up.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Ok. But if you change your mind, as long as I still have the book, the offer still stands.

Thanks, I do appreciate the offer.

And Audie, what do you mean by this:

Starting with a conclusion is terrible science.

Are you suggesting that Hugh Ross starts science with a conclusion?

Id say so, in that a preacher and an avowed creationist is starting with the conclusion that a god set things up.

Which may lead to conclusions like junk DNA and vestigial organs actually serving a purpose perhaps.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Ok. But if you change your mind, as long as I still have the book, the offer still stands.

Thanks, I do appreciate the offer.

And Audie, what do you mean by this:

Starting with a conclusion is terrible science.

Are you suggesting that Hugh Ross starts science with a conclusion?

Id say so, in that a preacher and an avowed creationist is starting with the conclusion that a god set things up.

Well, since you don't want to read the book to see for yourself, then I guess it's a moot point, isn't it?

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:Ok. But if you change your mind, as long as I still have the book, the offer still stands.

And Audie, what do you mean by this:

Starting with a conclusion is terrible science.

Are you suggesting that Hugh Ross starts science with a conclusion?

Well, all science starts with A conclusion, and that is that somehow, there is an answer, there is A conclusion.

Oh?

In any case starting with THE conclusion that theres a designer is the opposite of doing science.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Ok. But if you change your mind, as long as I still have the book, the offer still stands.

Thanks, I do appreciate the offer.

And Audie, what do you mean by this:

Starting with a conclusion is terrible science.

Are you suggesting that Hugh Ross starts science with a conclusion?

Id say so, in that a preacher and an avowed creationist is starting with the conclusion that a god set things up.

Which may lead to conclusions like junk DNA and vestigial organs actually serving a purpose perhaps.

Huh?

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Ok. But if you change your mind, as long as I still have the book, the offer still stands.

Thanks, I do appreciate the offer.

And Audie, what do you mean by this:

Starting with a conclusion is terrible science.

Are you suggesting that Hugh Ross starts science with a conclusion?

Id say so, in that a preacher and an avowed creationist is starting with the conclusion that a god set things up.

Well, since you don't want to read the book to see for yourself, then I guess it's a moot point, isn't it?

What I say or do wont change the rather obvious point I made, so no
it aint mootiated.

It seems these type of discussions always boil down to a philosophy of science.
One philosophy is cloaked the other stands out like a sore thumb.

Everyone brings to the table a philosophical framework that they perform science within.
Such is often of little consequence, but it can influence what one does/doesn't look for.

What matters at the end of the day is that the actual science gets done.