Unbelievable... seriously!

[_bcspace]

That kind of apologist is about as common as a unicorn.

If you were to attend Church, I think you'd find it less rare than you think.

Scientist my foot. I simply do not believe anyone trained in science would declare John 7;17 "scientific".

So it has nothing to do with models based on observations of certain phenomenon?

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.

What about all those who have come to a different conclusion? How many successful experiments have to be performed to determine there actually is something to it?

[_Moniker]

I think I started a thread on the Science of Christianity for BCSpace at some point... it was odd... :)

I have a feeling that is a dramatic understatement!!!

"Odd" as in "man, opening my door and discovering my house had been transported onto an alien spacecraft this morning was odd!" ;)

Here it is!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5635

Odd as in I didn't know what the hell he was talking about!

~edited to add~
I don't think he knows what he's talking about either!

[_beastie]

What about all those who have come to a different conclusion? How many successful experiments have to be performed to determine there actually is something to it?

You, sir, are no scientist.


I

don't think he knows what he's talking about either!

I think everyone but BC would concur with this analysis.

[_bcspace]

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."

The answer sounds quite favorable to my pov.

I have not demanded that they be combined. I have merely shown how they do not conflict and that true principles work for both the spiritual and physical realms.

[_bcspace]

What about all those who have come to a different conclusion? How many successful experiments have to be performed to determine there actually is something to it?

You, sir, are no scientist.

Your inability to answer the question puts the lie in your statement.

[_beastie]

Your inability to answer the question puts the lie in your statement.

Oh. My. God.

It doesn't matter that other people reached a different answer, because there is nothing scientific about the process in the first place. If, in some bizarroworld, it actually was considered scientific then I falsified it because I tried to replicate the results and the experiment failed.

In real science (not your bizarroworld science), an experiment must be able to be replicated and produce the same results to be considered a success.

The reasons why this is not "scientific" are painfully obvious to anyone with even a cursory awareness of science - and that group clearly excludes you. There is no way to control for bias, there is no clear formula to follow because it's all vague and subjective, and there is no way to measure the results.

[_Ray A]

The answer sounds quite favorable to my pov.

I have not demanded that they be combined. I have merely shown how they do not conflict and that true principles work for both the spiritual and physical realms.

I'm no scientist, but I've read a lot into the history and philosophy of science (part of my history major at university many moons ago), and your fundmental misunderstanding is that they do not conflict. They do. And they have for centuries, which is why people like Bruno got burned at the stake.

The accommodation has been religion to science, not science to religion, and Gould described them as different "compartments", because there is conflict. Not to recognise this conflict is denial.

Nothing wrong at all with believing, but saying that your belief "does not conflict with science" is rather weak.

If science and religion didn't conflict, no one would need Moroni 10:4-5 to determine the truth of the Book of Mormon. We could just read the latest edition of New Scientist.

[_bcspace]

I'm no scientist, but I've read a lot into the history and philosophy of science (part of my history major at university many moons ago), and your fundmental misunderstanding is that they do not conflict. They do. And they have for centuries, which is why people like Bruno got burned at the stake.

I do not say science and religion do not conflict though I can see why you might think I think that. However, I do say that science and the LDS religion do not conflict.

The accommodation has been religion to science, not science to religion, and Gould described them as different "compartments", because there is conflict. Not to recognise this conflict is denial.

If science and religion didn't conflict, no one would need Moroni 10:4-5 to determine the truth of the Book of Mormon. We could just read the latest edition of New Scientist.

Non sequitur.

Nothing wrong at all with believing, but saying that your belief "does not conflict with science" is rather weak.

How so? Are you familiar with LDS doctrine on science?

[_bcspace]

Your inability to answer the question puts the lie in your statement.

Oh. My. God.

Do you believe in this God you call upon? lol

It doesn't matter that other people reached a different answer, because there is nothing scientific about the process in the first place.

What's unscientific about it?

[_beastie]

What's unscientific about it?

Go reread my post. If you have even a high schooler's awareness of science, you'll figure it out. Just for starters, of course.