Ok then

I'll get in a better one with some references later on. My previous post is best ignored.

“My brothers, you are well aware that from early days

God made his choice among you that through my mouth

the Gentiles would hear the word of the Gospel and believe.

And God, who knows the heart,

bore witness by granting them the Holy Spirit

just as he did us.

He made no distinction between us and them,

“My brothers, listen to me.

Symeon has described how God first concerned himself

with acquiring from among the Gentiles a people for his name.

The words of the prophets agree with this, as is written:

After this I shall return

and rebuild the fallen hut of David;

from its ruins I shall rebuild it

and raise it up again,

so that the rest of humanity may seek out the Lord,

even all the Gentiles on whom my name is invoked.

Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things,

known from of old.

It is my judgment, therefore,

that we ought to stop troubling the Gentiles who turn to God,

sing to the LORD, all you lands.

Sing to the LORD; bless his name.

Announce his salvation, day after day.

Tell his glory among the nations;

among all peoples, his wondrous deeds.

Say among the nations: The LORD is king.

He has made the world firm, not to be moved;

he governs the peoples with equity.

<Proclaim God’s marvelous deeds to all the nations.

“As the Father loves me, so I also love you.

Remain in my love.

If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love,

just as I have kept my Father’s commandments

and remain in his love.

“I have told you this so that

my joy might be in you and

34 a fruitful land into barrenness,
for the wickedness of them that dwell therein.

35 He turneth the wilderness into a standing water,
and dry ground into watersprings.

<OCF: Please, share with us the observations of life coming from nonlife.>

<whatthefat: Are you even reading what I'm saying anymore? >

Being only human, some scientists are dishonest. I believe this usually happens when a faction of scientists decides, for reasons of personal gain, to push a political project, such as "man-made global warming." Besides, there are just as many ways of seducing scientists as there are of seducing anybody else. Sometimes great big grants will do it. And has anybody noticed that the loudest accusations of "dishonesty" made against scientists are made by other scientists who disagree with them? For instance, any scientist who doubts man-made global warming "is a shill for Big Oil," etc.

I guess I could. It's my experience that direct questions tend not to be addressed. Later on we'll see how you ask *before* accusing someone of fear.

<Sure, I'll "admit" that it's "in the realm of philosophy". I'm not sure what significance you place on this however. >

Science will not, I tell you, NOT deal with creationism, since it is by definition outside the realm of science. But if need be, science will reach outside the realm of science and slide in another discipline, in this case philosophy, on an as needed basis. You can gloss over that little problem by simply calling it the "Philosophy of Science" but you will not be consistent and allow someone else to suggest Science consider the "Religion of Science".

<Basically, I agree with <achieve>'s comment. These two assumptions, (1) that there is a natural explanation and (2) that there is a divine explanation, may be deemed as two philosophical approaches to understanding this universe that we observe and the life within it.>

It's nice to find one point I agree with in your post.

<The first is the philosophical approach used by science, while the second is the philosophical approach of religion. Frankly, I've made this *same* point multiple times myself. I'm perfectly happy with this "admission". >

So Philosophy is a discipline that can cross the boundaries of the otherwise irresolute realm of Science? How convenient.

<THE PROBLEM is that some on the divine philosophy side aren't happy with this arrangement. They want the natural-explanation philosophers to accept their divine-explanation philosophy. And they go as far accusing them of bias and dishonesty for refusing! >

You have learned well from President Obama and his knack for strawman building by referring to "some".

<Why the divine-explanation philosophers do this is another matter...>

Why do "some" get the feeling this won't turn out to be a positive assessment?

~~~~~

<IMO, it's because they are fearful. >

As opposed to the conflicting interpretations of the evolutionists? How soaring the rhetoric is for the Glory of the Single Minded Evolutionists. You can't be serious.

<Meanwhile, the science side has no such limitations (although their work is much harder). >

Yeah, when the facts are against you, and you have to invent new ideas every time the old ones are disproven, it is much harder.

<Over the centuries, they have deepened their understanding immensely.>

And we shall conveniently not mention their spectacular failures. Boy, that global cooling they warned about in the 1970's sure turned out to be a shining moment in the history of science. And for all that, they STILL can't explain where life came from. But to summarize: When science is wrong and admits it, that's a good thing, since it proves learning. When religion is wrong and admits it, that's a bad thing because it proves they were wrong.

<They have every reason to be pleased with the natural explanation philosophy.>

And for all that, they can't get the dimwitted American populace to agree with them. How sad. Better get back to work indoctrinating the school kids.

<Worse (from the religionist view), several of the views once held dearly as "obviously divine" (e.g. rainbows, lightning, geocentrism) have proven to have better natural explanations. Although the natural explanations have often faced religious opposition, those "obviously divine" views are now seen as "obviously natural" to most people -- even to most religious people.>

Rainbows? God used natural processes to create a rainbow. So what? As far as geocentrism, that is simply not a Biblical position. It is a position of an innately apostate church. And again, cite those but ignore the failures of science? Of course, the failures of science are just proof they have moved on. To summarize: You can go back hundreds of years to show religion was wrong (Not the Bible, religion, but I won't pursue that at the moment) and they are accountable for that forever. You can go back a few years to show science was wrong and that is good because they aren't accountable for it. How interesting. Science = good. Religion = bad. But you don't mean to be biased. Somehow I just am not buying that claim.

<As "obviously divine" views fall to natural explanations, many of the divine philosophers fear a decreasing sense of relevance. >

I wasn't aware you were a psychologist. Or maybe it's a fiction writer. Whatever. I will take note that it is apparently okay to make a negative remark about "many" of some group, though it is still a mortal sin to make a negative remark about "most" of some group.

<At a minimum, they fear having to admit that their earlier interpretations -- once forcefully defended to the point of attacking dissenters as liars -- were in fact wrong, and that their accusations were false. A deeply embarrassing position for those who represent the side of "divine intelligence". >

I don't accept the Roman Catholic Church as speaking for the side of Creation Science. In any event, again, embarrassing for one side to be wrong but a glorious achievement for the other side to be wrong.

<Amazingly, they don't learn.>

That got a real laugh.

< Today, the views still being held as "obviously divine" are the origin of the universe and the origin of life. They evidently think "this time it will be different". But it's the same story as has happened in the past. I predict it will have the same conclusion.>

I will sing and chant praise.

Awake, O my soul; awake, lyre and harp!

I will wake the dawn.

I will give thanks to you among the peoples, O LORD,

I will chant your praise among the nations.

For your mercy towers to the heavens,

and your faithfulness to the skies.

Be exalted above the heavens, O God;

above all the earth be your glory!

<I will give you thanks among the peoples, O Lord.

Religion is about faith, belief and devotion and science is about discovery, evidence and testing theories. And ne'er the twain should meet I suppose, hence these prolonged arguments that will change no-one's minds.

Though it is fun to butt heads occasionally as long as it isn't with buttheads...

<Science will not, I tell you, NOT deal with creationism, since it is by definition outside the realm of science.>

Not true really. Ever hear of the Big Bang Theory? That comes so close to creationism (some reckon it's a secular version of it) that even the Church is happy to endorse it, as it "a moment of creation about which more cannot be spoken", or words to that effect. But the point is quite true otherwise...science tends to construct theories from evidence, not from supposition or faith, as it has to be testable.

OCF: Science will not, I tell you, NOT deal with creationism, since it is by definition outside the realm of science. But if need be, science will reach outside the realm of science and slide in another discipline, in this case philosophy, on an as needed basis. You can gloss over that little problem by simply calling it the "Philosophy of Science" but you will not be consistent and allow someone else to suggest Science consider the "Religion of Science". >

Okay, I see why you're bothered. You consider "the realm philosophy" to be a separate from the "realm of science". I view science to be a subset of philosophy. Religion is another subset of philosophy.

However, science and religion (in my view) are separate realms within philosophy. They are distinguished by their different fundamental assumptions.

This, I think, answers a number of your quips.

<<YouRang: THE PROBLEM is that some on the divine philosophy side aren't happy with this arrangement. They want the natural-explanation philosophers to accept their divine-explanation philosophy. And they go as far accusing them of bias and dishonesty for refusing! >

OCF: You have learned well from President Obama and his knack for strawman building by referring to "some".>

I honestly don't know what you're bothered about here.

<OCF: Fearful of what? I'll take the bait here and say I ultimately have no fear of being wrong about the foundational point under discussion here, that there is a God of Creation. In the end, if I am wrong, so what? I've lived a life of goodness and morality.>

As opposed to the conflicting interpretations of the evolutionists? How soaring the rhetoric is for the Glory of the Single Minded Evolutionists. You can't be serious. >

You missed the point. You miss it so often that I think it must be intentional.

The point is that scientists have the advantage of making *progress*. Sure, they will make mistakes and they will have conflicts about how to interpret the data, but they can (and have throughout history) been able to correct and resolve those problems *internally* because their ideas are testable.

The religionists have these same problems, but since they have no objective tests by which to solve them, they can't make much progress on their own (although sometimes they are forced to revise interpretations because of *external* pressure, such as when their ideas are proven wrong by science).

This difference answers a number of your attempts make be appear inconsistent in my comparisons between science and religion.

<OCF: Yeah, when the facts are against you, and you have to invent new ideas every time the old ones are disproven, it is much harder. >

Ironic that you would say this. Inventing new ideas when the facts are against you is actually a good thing, and yes scientists do this. They are in the business of developing ideas that successfully explain the facts.

It beats sticking to one's dogma even when the facts are against you.

<<YouRang: Over the centuries, they have deepened their understanding immensely.>

OCF: And we shall conveniently not mention their spectacular failures. >

Do you find some inconsistency in having both success and failure? Do you deny the success because they've had failures? Science has had its share of both. But they learn from the failures. Do you really have a point in challenging this statement?

<OCF: And for all that, they STILL can't explain where life came from.>

You seem to think it's easy? Is there a deadline at which point they have to stop and say it can't be done?

<OCF: But to summarize: When science is wrong and admits it, that's a good thing, since it proves learning. When religion is wrong and admits it, that's a bad thing because it proves they were wrong.>

Another one of your slanted "summaries" of my position? I agree with the first part, but not the second. It's a good thing to admit when you're wrong in either case.

The difference is that religion hates to admit they are wrong, although they do it if forced (e.g. after losing a battle with science). Science desires to know when they are wrong (which isn't to say that they will simply take your word for it).

<<YouRang: They have every reason to be pleased with the natural explanation philosophy.>

OCF: And for all that, they can't get the dimwitted American populace to agree with them. How sad. Better get back to work indoctrinating the school kids. >

Are you advocating that polls should be a standard for determining truth?

<OCF: Rainbows? God used natural processes to create a rainbow. So what?>

Sure, and one day Christians will say "God used natural processes to create the universe, and to create life, so what?".

But there was a time when the church reacted badly to the suggestion that rainbows had a natural explanation.

<As far as geocentrism, that is simply not a Biblical position.>

See http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/geo... (But don't worry, they're just wackos who interpret too literally).

<OCF: I don't accept the Roman Catholic Church as speaking for the side of Creation Science.>

Who said anything about the Roman Catholics?

<YouRang: <As "obviously divine" views fall to natural explanations, many of the divine philosophers fear a decreasing sense of relevance. >

OCF: I wasn't aware you were a psychologist. Or maybe it's a fiction writer. Whatever. I will take note that it is apparently okay to make a negative remark about "many" of some group, though it is still a mortal sin to make a negative remark about "most" of some group. >

You think the words are basically the same?
"most" = at least more than half.
"many = large number, but could easily be less than "most"

This is the one where you flip-flopped about whether you think science is biased for refusing to accept miraculous explanations.

As of our last communication, the dialog has gone something like this:

~~~

YouRang (Apr04): "You seem to think science is biased for refusing to accept miraculous explanations"

OCF: "I don't think that, nor have I claimed or even implied it".

YouRang (Apr29): "do you think science is biased for refusing to accept miraculous explanations?"

OCF: "Yes"

YouRang: "You just contradicted yourself"

OCF: "It only looks like that because is misread 'accept' as 'consider'"

YouRang: "When did you misread it, the first time when you denied it, or this time when you confirmed it?"

OCF: "This time"

YouRang: "Okay, now that you know that I said 'accept' and not 'consider' this time, do you think scientists are biased for refusing to *accept* miraculous explanations?"

OCF: "Yes"

YouRang: ?! >