(February 20, 2016 at 12:47 am)AAA Wrote:(February 20, 2016 at 12:35 am)abaris Wrote: You really go there? After claiming to love science? In which case you should at least be aware of how you observe what you call unobservable.
If you follow the conversation leading up to that point, I laid out a way to investigate the unobservable past, but stimbo kept saying that it wasn't science unless it could be done in a lab. I agree that you can investigate the unobservable past scientifically, I just wanted to see if he could answer it in a way that simultaneously rendered intelligent design unscientific while still permitting materialistic explanations scientific. I think they are both scientific. But not empirical, and by definition not repeatable.
It doesn't literally mean a lab; it means that whatever hypothesis you develop (like these just-so stories of God-power at work, sans any form of explanative power of what that is, how it operates exactly, or in what ways it even interacts with our universe, if this God-power even exists, you must do experiments which measure the predictions you are making, and they must be reproducible by all your peers to see what you might have missed in narrowing down your results and/or conclusions.
Intelligent Design is not science. Again, as I have mentioned before, read the Kitzmiller case. In order for ID/IC to be considered a scientific theory, as the ID/IC people were attempting to do in court under oath, they admitted that based on the definition they gave, astronomy and voodoo might be included within the scope of that definition. We are unprepared to "expand" the definition or practice of science to people who cannot actually practice science.
To do so would be to endanger our future as a culture extant upon this earth, I fear.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
