:doh: Sorry about that. It's hard distinguishing one fundamentalist christian from another fundamentalist christian, a byproduct of Poe's Law and working from a cell phone.
What an incredibly childish and lame excuse for a total lack of paying attention.
Childish? No. Childish is when you stomp your feet and whine and cry over an honest oversight which did you no harm and for which I offered not one but two apologies. Try working from a cell phone with a 6 x 3 inch screen sometime, your opinion of the difficulty will likely change.
Again, someone that can't even keep this straight is the one that is going to teach us all?
I suppose when you have nothing constructive to offer, ridicule is a good fall back position and a mainstay of fundamentalist christianity from my experience.
Ad hominems only weaken YOUR argument, not mine.
It's not ad hominem. If you can't keep something so simple as two users straight, your judgement in general is suspect.
When you choose to attack the person rather than their argument that is a textbook case of
ad hominem. That I confused two users with somewhat similar aliases while using a 6 x 3 inch cell phone to format a post in no way makes my “judgement suspect”. Your continued need to make an issue of this makes you appear petty and defensive.
No, sometimes "science" allows us to deduce things that were unknown using prior "knowledge". Technological advancement is neither required nor a requirement for "science" to be beneficial.
It's very appropriate that you put your version of "science" in quotation marks.
There is no "my" version of "science". Perhaps it escaped your attention, I also put "knowledge" in quotation such that "science" (a methodology for gaining "knowledge") isn't confused with "knowledge" (a consequence of scientific methodology) but I won't insult you for your failure to perceive the somewhat less than clear distinction I was attempting to make.
Once AGAIN, there are different types of science that require different types of methodologies.
Great! Then you should have no problem describing, in detail, the scientific methodology used to form testable explanations and predictions about “the creator of all things”.
My point was that the type of science that produces technology is NOT the only kind of science.
I'll post this again because it seems you missed it in your eagerness to be insulting rather than civil...
"Technological advancement is neither required nor a requirement for "science" to be beneficial."
And, once again, I will point out that this is irrelevant.
Perhaps you should put more effort into recognizing when someone is agreeing with you.
For example, you cannot use repeated experimentation to obtain historical knowledge.
"Science"... is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form testable explanations and predictions about (insert your desired objective here)."
ONCE AGAIN, this is about ONE TYPE of science and is NOT relevant to other types of science.
Once again, this applies to ALL types of science. That the different scientific disciplines have similar yet somewhat different methodologies won’t change what “science” is set up to accomplish.
Nor can you use repeated experimentation to validate knowledge gained by revelation, especially from a source like the Creator of all things.
Rewording the same argument ("One is revelation... like the type that God uses and you ignore.") doesn't make it less begging the question.
Once again, you do not know what you're talking about. If there is a God (and there is) that gives knowledge by revelation (and He did), your operation science (once AGAIN, the kind that produces technology) has no ground.
This is begging the question AND special pleading AND a page from the Sye ten Bruggencate playbook of presuppositional apologetics. I won’t call you Shirley but you’ve got to have a better argument than this to be convincing.
Invoking Godwin's Law, how does one distinguish between, "My personal preferred version of deity "revealed" to me "he" wanted me to murder six-million Jews", from something less extreme?
Your love of Internet memes is duly noted.
… and yet again the point seems to have either sailed completely over your head or I was too subtle in my analogy. If “revelation” is a valid method for your personal preferred concept of deity to communicate, then Hitler was justified in murdering the Jews during WWII if he was told to do so by HIS personal preferred concept of deity. And, if so, what is the scientific methodology used to form of testable explanations and predictions to determine if the message was indeed from “the creator of all things” and not simply that person’s own personal desire?
Please explain, in detail, how "science", as a systematic enterprise, builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the creator of all things.
Operational science cannot. But you cannot understand this simple fact.
OK, so “operational science” (whatever that is) can’t form testable explanations and predictions about “the creator of all things”. Now would be an excellent opportunity for you to quit stalling and describe the scientific methodology necessary to form testable explanations and predictions about “the creator of all things”.
It's rather rude and presumptuous of you to make pronouncements about what I understand science does and doesn't do, a common fault among people (particularly fundamentalist christians) who think they have the clairvoyance to read minds.
You've proven from your posts that you do not understand it and have confirmed it again.
Your continued need to insult is limitless... not the best way to construct a convincing argument or to make friends and influence people but to each his own.
Stating facts about your lack of understanding may appear to you as insults. Too bad.
I’ve given you every opportunity to update my understanding (provide the science, give me knowledge) yet you refuse. Why?
Equivocate much?
That was not equivocation. Another of your many confused statements.
"Science" (a methodology for gaining "knowledge") isn't to be confused with "knowledge" (a consequence of scientific methodology) but I won't insult you for your failure to perceive the somewhat less than clear distinction I was attempting to make.
Nobody was confusing the methods with the results. You are confusing the various methods of the various types of science.
“Modern science is typically divided into three major branches that consist of the natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study nature in the broadest sense; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics and theoretical computer science), which study abstract concepts. There is disagreement, however, on whether the formal sciences actually constitute a science as they do not rely on empirical evidence. Disciplines that utilize existing scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine, are described as applied sciences.” – Wikipedia
ALL of these sciences, as far as I know, use similar methodology with some minor tweaks. I can’t recall if it was you or someone else who said (something like), “Science simply means knowledge”, and while true, science is also a methodology used to obtain knowledge, thus the equivocation.
My research indicates “operational science” to be a term coined by creationists for any science that deals with testing and verifying ideas in the present and leads to the production of useful products like computers and cars, and satellites.
So, if “operational science” can’t form testable explanations and predictions about “the creator of all things” then now is the time for you to describe the scientific methodology necessary to form testable explanations and predictions about “the creator of all things”.
"Science", as professional scientists and I use the word, "is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved October 16, 2011. 3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method.)
Once AGAIN, that is NOT the only kind of science.
Sure it is. Perhaps if you tried inserting, "the past" (from your "historical" example above), in place of "the universe" you'd see the definition works for everything except, perhaps, that which is "revealed" from your personal preferred concept of deity.
Your total confusion remains.
I’ve asked several time in this and other posts for you to write a single sentence to assist in my understanding of what scientific methodology is necessary to form testable explanations and predictions about “the creator of all things”. How many posts should I expect to wait before you will provide an explanation?
... and you accuse me of begging the question? Hilarious.
Confusing ME with JudgeRightly again. HILARIOUS.
Yeah, when you pointed out my (rather minor) error (as explained above) I had a chuckle as well. Again, sorry about that, Chief.
A "minor" error, like your inability to understand the various types of science.
Let it go, man. Let it go. At least I formatted this reply on a computer. Hopefully the errors are even more minor this time through. Yet I'm sure you will still find something to complain about.
