Science is inherently atheistic

[T0 Th3 M4X]

I will say that your current behavior strikes a familiar chord with me.  We had up until recently a theist member who was known for repeatedly, when backed into a corner, finding disingenuous excuses for abandoning the discussion.  His name was Roadrunner79.  The last he was seen, he had decided to leave the forum, along with several other theists, after some rather intense questioning on my part.  That you are, apparently, choosing to abandon discussing the issue with me unless I meet your rather arbitrary standards of evidence and argumentative support seems equally disingenuous and eerily familiar.  Are you a sock of Roadrunner79?

The manner described is indeed eerily similar to RR's.

Pandering doesn't work on me. Nice try though.

Facts on the other hand...

[Angrboda]

[T0 Th3 M4X]

From the piece you shared

"One of the reasons given for the verdict is the notion that science is limited strictly to the study of natural phenomena and therefore that ID and other claims involving supernatural phenomena are outside the proper domain of scientific investigation. While the verdict is widely viewed as correct for other reasons cited in the court’s opinion, that particular rationale upon which it is based is questionable. "

That is our discussion in a nutshell.

The verdict is held as "correct" including by the court and their annotations, but the person writing this believes it is "questionable."

That's fine. If you want to question it and he wants to question it, then nobody is telling you that you can't. Maybe there's even merit to such a pursuit. However, as it stands it is "correct" to limit scientific study to natural phenomena. I think it's fair to say, many of us aren't interested in studies about vampires, goblins, and ghouls and would rather put our focus on applying science in the natural world.

[The Grand Nudger]

Scientific study is limited to natural effects, pretty much, as a consequence of the limitations of our equipment.  If a supernatural cause has a natural effect, science is still all in on that effect.

[Angrboda]

However, as it stands it is "correct" to limit scientific study to natural phenomena.  

This is nothing more than an ipse dixit argument which flies in the face of the plentiful counter-examples of scientific studies investigating phenomena believed to have a supernatural cause which I provided. Is this what you consider reasoned debate? Simply ignoring evidence that you don't like? And what about the fact that you contradicted your own source with your claim that "knowing the root cause [of gravity] is irrelevant," which directly contradicts your source's comment that science can only study phenomenon whose root cause is metaphysically natural? Apparently you're a dialetheist and you view talking out of both sides of your mouth as right and proper. I prefer we stick with classical logic, in which case, if I accept both your statements as true, by the principle of logical explosion I can derive the truth of any statement in short order, including that "everything you say is wrong," and "you're an asshole." QED. I win.

[Rahn127]

Science is limited to the things that exist.
It's difficult to study things that don't exist.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

However, as it stands it is "correct" to limit scientific study to natural phenomena.  

This is nothing more than an ipse dixit argument which flies in the face of the plentiful counter-examples of scientific studies investigating phenomena believed to have a supernatural cause which I provided.  Is this what you consider reasoned debate?  Simply ignoring evidence that you don't like?  And what about the fact that you contradicted your own source with your claim that "knowing the root cause [of gravity] is irrelevant," which directly contradicts your source's comment that science can only study phenomenon whose root cause is metaphysically natural?  Apparently you're a dialetheist and you view talking out of both sides of your mouth as right and proper.  I prefer we stick with classical logic, in which case, if I accept both your statements as true, by the principle of logical explosion I can derive the truth of any statement in short order, including that "everything you say is wrong," and "you're an asshole."  QED.  I win.

 Yep, you win. Enjoy your vampires.

[Angrboda]

This is nothing more than an ipse dixit argument which flies in the face of the plentiful counter-examples of scientific studies investigating phenomena believed to have a supernatural cause which I provided.  Is this what you consider reasoned debate?  Simply ignoring evidence that you don't like?  And what about the fact that you contradicted your own source with your claim that "knowing the root cause [of gravity] is irrelevant," which directly contradicts your source's comment that science can only study phenomenon whose root cause is metaphysically natural?  Apparently you're a dialetheist and you view talking out of both sides of your mouth as right and proper.  I prefer we stick with classical logic, in which case, if I accept both your statements as true, by the principle of logical explosion I can derive the truth of any statement in short order, including that "everything you say is wrong," and "you're an asshole."  QED.  I win.

 Yep, you win. Enjoy your vampires.

Yeah, winning is rather easy when your opponent realizes his case and arguments are nothing but folly. Are you going to answer my prior post or is this your indication that you're going to abandon any debate in which you're not doing particularly well? I can't say I would be surprised.

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem to be forgetting that they're -your- vampires, Max.  You brought them up.  Some of us are wondering why vampires aren't given the same credence that ghosts are, particularly in light of your explanation of what science could and couldn't study.

Ghosts got a pass, vampires were written off breathlessly, how, based upon the positions you've expressed?

[T0 Th3 M4X]

You seem to be forgetting that they're -your- vampires, Max.  You brought them up.  Some of us are wondering why vampires aren't given the same credence that ghosts are, particularly in light of your explanation of what science could and couldn't study.

Ghosts got a pass, vampires were written off breathlessly, how, based upon the positions you've expressed?

Mentioning a supposed "creature" doesn't mean I believe it exists.  I assume they don't exist, but maybe they do.  We don't use the scientific method to make claims about vampires, goblins, and ghouls.  The counter argument was that I must apply this equally to gravity because it may have a supernatural cause.  My argument to that is "it doesn't matter" because you can't negate gravity when the effect of it is easily testable, observable, and repeatable in the natural world. It's also applied as a scientific law in the form of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.  Unless Newton had law about vampires too, then no point making assumptions about testing them.  Even if they do exist, they would be considered supernatural and not bound by natural/universal laws.  Things like turning into bats, walking through walls, no reflection, and other such attributes would also be considered "supernatural."

And from that, it was determined I was being a big meanie who must lie about everything, and the other person proclaimed a "win" by default.

So yeah, there ya have it.

But hey, if the prize is a pet vampire monster, I say "No thanks."