The problem with acceptance of the science is the acceptance of the assumptions that come with it.
"Science" has no assumptions. It is a method: nothing more, and nothing less. If there is an "assumption" it is only that the same principles apply uniformly throughout the universe. "Supernatural" events are only excluded if you assume that what is "supernatural" is not part of the uniform order of nature. Since I maintain that the uniform order of nature allows for things like resurrection, miracles, and the like, I precisely deny that these kinds of events are "supernatural" (in the sense of contravening that order), and therefore deny that science and faith are incompatible. Properly-done science has nothing to say about faith, and properly-lived faith has nothing to do with science.
The problem with acceptance of the science is the acceptance of the assumptions that come with it.
"Science" has no assumptions. It is a method: nothing more, and nothing less. If there is an "assumption" it is only that the same principles apply uniformly throughout the universe. "Supernatural" events are only excluded if you assume that what is "supernatural" is not part of the uniform order of nature. Since I maintain that the uniform order of nature allows for things like resurrection, miracles, and the like, I precisely deny that these kinds of events are "supernatural" (in the sense of contravening that order), and therefore deny that science and faith are incompatible. Properly-done science has nothing to say about faith, and properly-lived faith has nothing to do with science.
As I said I used to be a physicist. I know what the scientific method is. To say "science has no assumptions" is to stress the methodological dimensions of science and to draw attention to the extremely important difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. In other words, the scientific method says nothing about the data which result from the application of the scientific method, and those data themselves are different from the interpretation of those data, as for example compiled and analyzed in the form of a scientific paper.
As I said I used to be a physicist. I know what the scientific method is. To say "science has no assumptions" is to stress the methodological dimensions of science and to draw attention to the extremely important difference between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. In other words, the scientific method says nothing about the data which result from the application of the scientific method, and those data themselves are different from the interpretation of those data, as for example compiled and analyzed in the form of a scientific paper.
Noted. Still, science does begin with some very real assumptions.
Samantabhadra wrote:The Bible is not a reliable instrument for attaining that knowledge; radiometric dating is a reliable instrument for that knowledge.
If you can not see an assumption here, oh like decay rates are constant going into the past, then you do live in a strange world indeed. Much stranger than mine.
And by the way decay rates are changing. Getting faster, go figure.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And by the way decay are changing. Getting faster, go figure.
CFR.
And as I said, I was a physicist. No, decay rates are not changing. That is physically impossible. Have you ever taken a class on quantum mechanics or radioactivity?
And as I said, I was a physicist. No, decay rates are not changing. That is physically impossible. Have you ever taken a class on quantum mechanics or radioactivity?
Take my word for it they are. It fits my belief that in times past the rates were way different. Fits a much shorter time line for the past.
And as I said, I was a physicist. No, decay rates are not changing. That is physically impossible. Have you ever taken a class on quantum mechanics or radioactivity?
Take my word for it they are. It fits my belief that in times past the rates were way different. Fits a much shorter time line for the past.
You've linked to your proof for "variable decay rates" here before. Why not go for it one more time? Samantabhadra may not have seen it.
Morley wrote:You've linked to your proof for "variable decay rates" here before. Why not go for it one more time? Samantabhadra may not have seen it.
My point always is that man does not provide truth. The creation does not provide truth if indeed it is a created thing in which many possible options were available. I believe that God made this world the way it is. I believe that in the past it has been way different and in the future it will be way different again. The point is that I don't provide truth and neither does some guy at some university. The university may provide an observation that may be interesting but that is all. And even the observation of people at a university if any assumptions are included in their statements may in the future be walked back.