<<<<Thus says the LORD:

I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh.>

Your sons and daughters shall prophesy,

your old men shall dream dreams,

your young men shall see visions;

even upon the servants and the handmaids,

in those days, I will pour out my spirit.>

And I will work wonders in the heavens and on the earth,

blood, fire, and columns of smoke;

the sun will be turned to darkness,

and the moon to blood,

at the coming of the day of the LORD,

the great and terrible day.>

Then everyone shall be rescued

who calls on the name of the LORD;

for on Mount Zion there shall be a remnant,

as the LORD has said,

and in Jerusalem survivors

<<<<<<<<Jesus stood up and exclaimed,>

“Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink.>

As Scripture says:>

Rivers of living water will flow from within him who believes in me.”>

He said this in reference to the Spirit>

that those who came to believe in him were to receive.>

There was, of course, no Spirit yet,>

I don't need to read minds to conclude that someone who rejects God's role as Creator is not a Christian as I understand the term. I mean, if God is not the Creator, then what is He? The Apostle's Creed begins with the words, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth..." I suppose someone can call himself a Christian if he rejects the Creed, but it's too much for my theology.

As for wishful thinking: wasn't it T.H. Huxley who said Darwinism was necessary to free us from moral restraints on our sexual activities? (To which the Rabbi answers, "With who?")

In a sense, that's true of any mathetmatical model. And yet, scientists have come up with many mathematical models that represent their best understanding of reality in nature, and those models seem to work remarkably well.

So why shouldn't they work with mathematical models, and what exactly do you think scientists should use if not mathematical models?

<I don't need to read minds to conclude that someone who rejects God's role as Creator is not a Christian as I understand the term. I mean, if God is not the Creator, then what is He? The Apostle's Creed begins with the words, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth..." I suppose someone can call himself a Christian if he rejects the Creed, but it's too much for my theology.>

What would you say to someone who thinks that God did create by using natural processes? For example, we know that the rainbow can be explained by natural processes, and yet the Bible says it is a sign from God. Therefore, it seems that God can use natural processes for his purposes.

<As for wishful thinking: wasn't it T.H. Huxley who said Darwinism was necessary to free us from moral restraints on our sexual activities? (To which the Rabbi answers, "With who?")>

Do you think T.H.Huxley speaks for everyone who accepts evolution?

<Yes, these are tough questions, but I really don't think you can have it both ways. Either God is the Creator or He is not.>

in the company and assembly of the just.

Great are the works of the LORD,

exquisite in all their delights.

He has given food to those who fear(respect) him;

he will forever be mindful of his covenant.

He has made known to his people the power of his works,

<giving them the inheritance of the nations.>

He has sent deliverance to his people;

he has ratified his covenant forever;

holy and awesome is his name.

His praise endures forever.

As I apparently am not going to get a response to this repeatedly asked question, I'll ask another question.

<Should scientific research be based upon theories that are not scientific?>

Perhaps this is a different question, perhaps not, but for completeness.

<Is it logical for science to build scientific theories upon a foundation of unscientific theories?>

and you will have treasure in heaven;> then come,> follow me.”>

At that statement,> his face fell,>

and he went away sad,> for he had many possessions.>

(“For men it is impossible),> but not for God.>

As I apparently am not going to get a response to this repeatedly asked question, I'll ask another question.>

Yes, you have repeatedly asked that question. Do I have to answer it repeatedly?

I answered on May 21, Here: OhioChessFan chessforum

The short answer is: Yes, it is a theory, but not a scientific theory. Or are you waiting for someone else to answer?

<OCF: Should scientific research be based upon theories that are not scientific?>

Your question makes me doubt that you understand the process. In fact you seem to have it backwards.

Do you think that that's what PgP meant to imply? Wouldn't "large majority" suffice already?

Fair enough.

While we're at it -- it would help matters - ugh - if you'd demand and apply the same rigorous standards and subsequent criticism to your IMO upto now own generalizing interpretations and accusatory statements (I'll be specific and give you a number of examples if needed) of a similar kind, from a similar position.

Leave the trenches and stop throwing them granates and firing on what imo resemble strawmen, since this will lead only to a further muddying of a discussion based on a (sofar lacking) body of evidence and following set of assumptions and prejudices; and a further sh*itty useless polarization will be the only non-result.

If you infer a general attitude then at least support the main thesis with ample examplary evidence and material, or personal experiences of similar weight. (You've hinted to that earlier several times now.)

<OCF> There already has been given an elaborate explanatory to you (May 20th-22nd *) by both YouRang and whatthefat on the flexibility re interpretation and application (casual---scientific) "theory" in science - so why keep going there and move in circles. But I may misinterprate you here so please just view this remark of mine with a few pinches of salt if necessary. ;)

* <

May-22-10
OhioChessFan chessforum
YouRang: <OhioChessFan> Thanks for the answers. <<1. Is there any confusion in your mind about 'scientific theory' vs. 'casual theory'? >

I understand that there are sometimes different usages of the same word. I also understand this delineation came after the fact, after I addressed the subject how many times for how long. I guess if I tried that after the fact, you'd accuse me of inconsistency. Whereas you are fine and dandy, and I'm a buffoon for not following all along. >

No, not a buffoon. But not terribly receptive to explanations either.

<<2. Was there ever any doubt in your mind that evolution IS considered to be a scientific theory?>

I'm not sure what you are asking here. I have a great doubt on where the matter stands. I guess on this forum, it's not a theory but it is a fact. Or something. >

Sorry, my meaning was that evolution is considered a scientific theory *according to most scientists*.

BTW, if there is still confusion about theory vs. fact, that's another matter. Scientists do regard evolution as both a theory and a fact, but you should understand that the theory of evolution and the fact of evolution are two different things. I think I explained this a while back...

<Science doesn't start with a scientific theory and then do research on it.> Huh? A hypothesis most often precedes the testing phase, in turn preceding the new- or adjustment on existing- scientific theory.

And vice versa; the "dialogue" is in (constant) motion and changes direction continually, adapting, adjusting both hypotheses, tests, and eventually theories.

In addition: "<Science doesn't start ... and then do (does) research..>", who *is* <Science> there?

Do you think that that's what PgP meant to imply? Wouldn't "large majority" suffice already?>

Well, I'm not sure, which is why I asked.

I admit that I find it hard to pin down the discussion sometimes because of "context drift". For instance, <playground player> introduced "wishful thinking" (May 23) as the basis for cosmological theories which state that there was once no life.

<PgP: I'm not swayed by cosmological theories that come from abstruse mathematics and wishful thinking.>

I questioned him on his point in that context:

<YouRang: The other reason you mention is 'wishful thinking'. Are you saying that scientists have some reason to wish that there was once no life?>

He responds by using "wishful thinking" in a whole new context:

<As for wishful thinking: wasn't it T.H. Huxley who said Darwinism was necessary to free us from moral restraints on our sexual activities?>

Now, instead of cosmological theories that conclude that there was once no life, we're talking about Darwinism (i.e. evolution), and a whole new motive (removing moral restraints from sexual activitites).

In that sense, he seems to be talking again about motives of other people, such as his ealier declaration that <Persons who believe that life created itself have a theological axe to grind.>

I understood it to mean that anyone who accepts that there is a natural explanation for life on earth is doing so for reason related to theology. It is an assertion about the motives of a large number of people, and it's not even presented as an opinion. It also seems to rule against people who think God works *through* natural processes.

Anyway, from my perspective, the dialog has lots of crossed wires and loose ends. Most of my comments to <playground player> are simply intended to confirm my understanding of his position and follow a straight line of thought.

Perhaps you can come up with example of where I am guilty of doing similar 'sins'. But then again, perhaps I see a qualitative difference. Bring forth your examples if you like, and I'll attempt to deal with them honestly.

<Bring forth your examples if you like, and I'll attempt to deal with them honestly.> Will do, and appreciated in advance.

<Should scientific research be based upon theories that are not scientific?>

I took it to mean that scientists should not do research on abiogenesis because it was not yet scientific theory.

Looking again, he might be asking if research toward a new theory should be dependent on non-scientific theories.

Or to put it another way (that I think is more to the point): Is it possible for one scientific theory (theory A) to be based on another theory (theory B) that is not scientific.

My answer to the last question would be: No. I do not believe that Theory A can be considered scientific if it depends on a Theory B that is non-scientific. However, it is complicated. Why isn't theory B scientific? Has it failed tests, or has it not been tested for long enough? Perhaps the success of Theory A will serve as a confirmation of Theory B.

Perhaps <whatthefat> would see it differently. I don't claim to be answering for him.

there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters

or mother or father or children or lands

for my sake and for the sake of the Gospel

who will not receive a hundred times more now in this present age:

houses and brothers and sisters

and mothers and children and lands,

with persecutions, and eternal life in the age to come.