Re: Discovery Institute Coven filed fraudulent DMCA take-down notices

On Jun 12, 2:51 pm, "[M]adman" <ad...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I know I said i would let you have the last word, but you said a few things
that peeked my intrest further.


That's just it. What many do not want to understand is that the world, the
universe, and everything that they study with science is what was left
behind by the supernatural act of creation

and how do we know this? you assume that there are no physical laws
governing the universe: that's the basis of creationism. pure
supernatural magic

except it doesnt work. that explanation can't explain a SINGLE feature
of the observed universe at all. for thousands of years people have
tried to use this explanation. it NEVER worked. even once

now supernaturalists are involved in a contradiction. they say there
are no natural laws in the universe, since everything is supernatural,
BUT that the existence of natural laws proves they were supernaturally
created

it's like watching a manx cat chase its tail


.. The universe and everything in
it, all of the processes, cycles, laws and physical matter itself is the
physical evidence for creation. The only other explaination is to say
everything created itself, put itself into motion, and generated laws of
operation out of thin air from an unexplainable, unproveable singularity
that defies known laws of physics.

we dont know of any laws that can create our universe so you're
arguing the god of the gaps, as creationists have done for thousands
of years. and it's always been wrong.


Methodological naturalism would only separate the two issues into one
position being valid based only on what can be observed and the other
position being invalid based on the idea that if something is not seen it is
therefore nonexistent. That even sounded bias as I typed it. What is needed
is for the natural and the supernatural to be set side by side as part and
parcel of human understanding. Ontological or methodological naturalism is
an odd position to take on this topic IMHO. It is a self limiting position
when trying to understanding our existence.

great. that's exactly what it should be. very limited. very
conservative. because humans have a great capacity for being WRONG
based on what they FEEL should be right. they've been wrong more than
they've ever been right. and only by TESTING our ideas can we find out
whether they're wrong or right.

creationists abjure testing. they rely on vague assertions about
ancient texts that are, at best unclear, and at worst, simply wrong.



 I'll explain.

It is a known fact that animals can hear frequencies that humans cannot
hear.

a fact discovered by science. 'frequency' is a scientific term that
has no meaning in creationism.

From a human perspective since those frequencies could not be heard
they did not exist. Then technological discoveries were made that changed
how humans percieve sound and those frequencies. Now, from this new
perspective the frequencies exist. So, by taking a stance that the
supernatural is not real based upon the mere fact that it has no evidence
that can be seen from our current perspective is now proven moot based on
the fact that the frequencies did not exist until our perspective was
changed.

you're comparing a PHYSICAL property of the universe to a NON physical
property. we KNOW frequencies exist because we can measure them

we do NOT know the supernatural exists. in fact, the 'supernatural'
has been claimed to exist thousands of years before science. and you
guys explained nothing with it. that's why you INSIST that it's valid.
if you had any EVIDENCE you wouldn't have to try to force your way
into the discussion.

it's a useless idea.

IOW, With a change of perspective we may very well be able to see
the supernatural. Others have claimed to see supernatural events. So
something we do not understand must have changed their perspective of how
the universe is percieved in order for them to have those experiences.

anyone can measure a frequency. you get a transducer and an
oscilloscope. done.

how do you tell the supernatural exists? what's the oscilloscope
frequency of the supernatural?


Drawing a line in the sand and saying "this point is where evidence ends"
becomes (as I said above) self limiting regarding our understanding. Today,
that line seems to be validated with science by people that /want/ that line
to be the only acceptable form of evidence. I hope that was clear.

you guys had thousands of years to prove your case

any idea when you're gonna start? science, in 300 years, found out
more about the universe than creatinism did in 3000.


Well, that would be the more open minded approach. We have not come to a
full understanding of how or why the universe exists yet, so removing the
supernatural side of the equation is not prudent.

why is not a scientific concept. so right out of the box you're trying
to force fit science into your worldview. and we know your view is
useless.

Especially since we have
so much writen about the topic from the past. In addition, we do have
recorded eye wittnesses accounts to supernatural events.

we have eyewitness accounts to evolution which you say doesn't happen.

and in the last week or so we had a discussion about what the english
word 'atheist' means. it's changed in the last 300 years. that's just
one word. in english

yet you pretend that books written thousands of years ago in dead
languages are immediately understandable with no equivocation at all

which is nonsense.


Of course first
hand experience is better. My logic says there is no reason to believe /all/
supernatural events recorded are nothing but lies. Which that is how many
dismiss them.

again you create a dichotomy where none is needed.

why did ancients write the way they did? compare thucydides to other
authors of his time. he invoked no demons, no gods, no spirits, to
explain the peloponnesian war. thats' why his view is seen as history.
why do you ignore the absence of the supernatural in his writings but
insist supernatural explanations are good ones when it's obvious
that's not true?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Hide.
    ... What Are The Ancient Solfeggio Frequencies? ... properties of the universe, ... Your use of Yahoo! ...
    (sci.skeptic)
  • Re: The big bang theory [ The Red Shift ]
    ... the supposed cause of the expansion of the universe are the same. ... that the Apparent Red Shift of ... the frequencies of light waves from specifically identified atomic elements ... as some recent scientists have carefully observed. ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Taking a CAT Scan of the Early Universe (Forwarded)
    ... > images of the early universe. ... > The heart of the tomography technique described by Wyithe and Loeb ... > astronomers to map the Milky Way's spherical halo. ... > lower frequencies) by the expansion of space itself. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Hearing a Talking House on 1670 kHz with the Voice of . . .
    ... are spinning around and sending out Frequencies? ... full of many different frequencies.One big giant Radio, the Universe ... is.What Frequency did ET use when he Phoned Home? ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
Loading