Sure, you're a rocket scientist, and I'm Donald Trump in disguise.
Please, what is your field, and what school taught you that "scientific = being invited to experience it for yourself"?????????
Now that would be inviting you to participate in several logical fallacies. Just the facts of the case ma'am. Face it, the most dangerous kind of LDS apologist from your pov is one who can square science and doctrine.
bcspace wrote:Now that would be inviting you to participate in several logical fallacies. Just the facts of the case ma'am. Face it, the most dangerous kind of LDS apologist form your pov is one who can square science and doctrine.
I would in fact consider such an apologist dangerous. Dangerous to science.
Oh come on! So did you go to the same school as Kent Hovind?
Never heard of him till now. by the way, you should know by now that I subscribe to Evolution, Big Bang, and String theory as generally agreed upon by most scientists (well, there isn't as much agreement in String theory yet....) and don't see any conflict between them and LDS doctrine.
You haven't got any scientific reason for thinking that there is any connection between those people contributing to Prop 8 and their bank’s approval of a bid for a house. (That's nuts anyway!)
Your usual mental contortions and magical thinking are not consistent with a scientific mind. But your not alone. There a self proclaimed scientists that believe in any imaginable nonsense including young earth creationism. There are scientists and then the are scientists.
by the way, which is a closer description?
1. You have a BS degree in some kind of engineering and work in management.
or
2. You have a Ph.D. and engage in fundamental, peer reviewed research.
Just curious.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
You haven't got any scientific reason for thinking that there is any connection between those people contributing to Prop 8 and their bank’s approval of a bid for a house. (That's nuts anyway!)
So you admit that all you have is your own testimony?
by the way, which is a closer description?
So you like to dwell in logical fallicies like beastie?
Now that would be inviting you to participate in several logical fallacies. Just the facts of the case ma'am. Face it, the most dangerous kind of LDS apologist from your pov is one who can square science and doctrine.
That kind of apologist is about as common as a unicorn.
Scientist my foot. I simply do not believe anyone trained in science would declare John 7;17 "scientific". I suspect you may have an unusual idea of what constitutes a "scientist" - as unusual as your idea of what constitutes "scientific".
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
If John 7:17 is scientific, I have singlehandedly falsified Christianity. I "did his will" for 15 years, and in the end, knew that Jesus (and all religious leaders) aren't of any "God" and are definitely speaking for themselves.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:If John 7:17 is scientific, I have singlehandedly falsified Christianity. I "did his will" for 15 years, and in the end, knew that Jesus (and all religious leaders) aren't of any "God" and are definitely speaking for themselves.
I think I started a thread on the Science of Christianity for BCSpace at some point... it was odd... :)
bcspace wrote:If such an apologist accepts all science, how would he be dangerous to science?
You can find part of the answer to that in Stephen Gould's Rocks of Ages. His subsequent comments to the National Academy of Sciences (1999):
"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."