Or how about this: SCIENCE: Keep changing paradigm to reflect that new understandings demonstrate that previous one was wrong or inadequate. Continue in perpetuity. Recent examples: - Nutritional studies that keep flip-flopping our understanding whether antioxidants do or do not help avoid cancer or other health problems. - Avoid too much sun - causes melanomas. Whoops, actually, avoiding sun too much causes many more deaths (eg, Vitamin D). - Homo sapiens is the only existing member of the human family once Neanderthal went extinct. Whoops, very recent discovery of an apparent different human species existing 18,000 years ago or more recently known as "hobbit." Possibly homo erectus, but still unknown (needs further study). EG, see http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/photogalleries/homo_floresiensis_1/photo4.html - constants as found in the universe. Whoops, now a multiverse (possibly an infinite # of universes), where every universe has slightly different set of constants (gravity, weak nuclear force, etc.). Done partly due to the fact that scientists didn't like the fact that the universe's constants seemed almost preprogrammed to support life (an anthropromorphic view). Expand to a multiverse to correct problem, even though there is no direct evidence of any other universe. - Discovery first of dark matter, and then dark energy over last 30 years, to explain why cosmologists actually were only aware of about 4% of the universe (baryonic or "visible" matter), and were unaware of 96% of the same. Of course, none of this may actually exist, as there are some minority opinions that none of this may actually be necessary. Of course, string theory is also being questioned, as some scientists think it is awfully convenient to appeal to something we may never be able to demonstrate/prove/observe. - SETI project, because due to the large number of planets, there MUST be sentient/intelligent life on other planets, and we should. Unfortunately, nothing discovered yet. Bring more radio scopes to bear. Does this (as well as many of the models proposed - eg the 11 dimensional model of all things) smell something like "faith?" .........SEE ALSO "RUBE GOLDBERG" MACHINE It should be noted that I am scientist by education (bio, chem degrees), an amateur astonomer (20" dobsonian/reflector scope), a theistic evolutionist, and a huge supporter of the sciences (my favorite pasttime). I am also a biblical christian. Classical science is testable, repeatable, verifiable. When it starts gong after other domains (humanities, religions, history), this is not its purpose or strength. You cannot prove or disprove God. But the concept that science is a well-oiled machine that has pretty much arrived is completely stupid. We are often blindsided with new truths. We are just at the beginning of many sciences. Have we solved cancer? heart disease? strokes? made strong progress in anti-aging research? solved world hunger/famine, poverty? thermonuclear war potentials? alternative energy? sent people beyond the moon? And this list could contain thousands of examples. And let me also say that I have major problems with many things that biblical christians say/do/believe. There are a lot of discoveries in the scientific world that get ignored, in the name of faith. I am more enamored of the contents of scripture, rather than the interpretations or beliefs held in the christian domain. The bible/God does not need "defending" by crude or somewhat ignorant believers. There is a great deal we do not understand. Since this discussion is about "Why won't God heal amputees?" Regardless of sneering or supporting viewpoints, the biblical view is quite clear. There are two groups - those who believe and those who don't (old testament - the chosen people, Israel.... New Testament - expanded to include the faithful among the gentiles). Those who do not believe constantly demand proof and miracles that He is God. Where there was little faith, Jesus healed little. At one point when the Apostle Paul requested healing of an unknown ailment, God basically said that his grace was sufficient for Paul (ie, no healing). Healings were a minor and temporary thing. The point was always, to draw people towards God. Sometimes, healings or other things were used, but Jesus made it quite clear that "blessed are those who do NOT see, yet believe." But asking "Why won't God heal amputees" is a strange question, since it likely comes from someone who refuses to understand the stated purpose of God, has no understanding of the infinite and eternal, and thinks that a mortal, limited, blind critter like man can somehow pose questions and shape God to his own limited view. This has as much success and likelihood as expecting a premature baby to comprehend nuclear physics or make significant contributions to the field of biochemstry.
So you blame the amputees because they lack faith? How typical of believers to excuse the inaction of their God by acusing other christians as somehow not "real" christians. Do you really think that throughout all of our history there has never been an amputee with enough faith to be healed? Why does God heal every person who Benny Hinn touches no matter what their background but refuses to ever heal an amputee?
Benny Hinn and many other "faith healers" are likely charlatans. Many of these people have been properly debunked, including the likes of Peter Popov. I consider the charismatic movement as a recent phenomena that takes liberties with the central point of scripture. As to the rest of what you said, it is obvious you either did not grasp or did not read what I said carefully. Your response seems a retort looking for a place to be said.
Or how about this ...make all sorts of silly statements, create as many false arguments and incorrect assertions as possible. A method used for arguing against the fact it is as clear as day that science through the scientific method is the only means by which it has ever been possile for humans to gain better, fuller and practical understanding of the world. Along with that, ignore all the innumerable achievements, life saving medicines, technological advancements, facts and knowledge gained through science, in order to construct some really daft conclusions, as if in so doing, would give some sort of third rate credence to notions of a not actually all powerful invisible giant sky fairy . This sentence sums up for the rest of your post. It is in my view indicative of the little thought that so often goes into really very daft arguments made for promoting faith in line with science. " - Avoid too much sun - causes melanomas. Whoops, actually, avoiding sun too much causes many more deaths (eg, Vitamin D)." If you cannot see how ridiculous it is to put that sort of garbled nonsense forward in support of an argument, perhaps you have been reading the Bible a little too long .Maybe that book should contain a health notice; Warning Inconsistencies contradictions misinformation and falsehoods contained within but put forward as truth , may work against your ability to reason. Science wouldn't "go after" those categories, unless or until they are able to bring some testable information to science for examination via the scientific method. When results are verifiable, testable, repeatable and thereby established, they can be added to the sum of scientific knowledge. Both the humanities and history contain information capable of being tested for verification. Therefore what you say is wrong. They are not of the same category you include God within. God or any other claims based upon faith alone, do not have testable information. Classical science does not deal with things that have no testable information.. That realm belongs to makebelieve.
Much of this post is opinion and like above post, redirects some of my content. I do not agree with your extensions to science definition. "it is as clear as day that science through the scientific method is the only means by which it has ever been possile for humans to gain better, fuller and practical understanding of the world" Really? And mathematics, philosophy/logic, art/humanities, (animal/human) psychology, do not? Your assertions reflect an incomplete understanding of human endeavours and achievements. "If you cannot see how ridiculous it is to put that sort of garbled nonsense forward in support of an argument, perhaps you have been reading the Bible a little too long " A clueless assertion. Every argument is dead on. The post that my statement addressed held up science as some form of "we have arrived" paradigm. Saying "this statement is stupid" without disproving the statement has no meaning. DISPROVE them, don't say "these are ridiculous." "Both the humanities and history contain information capable of being tested for verification. Therefore what you say is wrong. They are not of the same category you include God within. God or any other claims based upon faith alone, do not have testable information." Actually biblical christianity has a large amount of testable information (and before you demand "proof" - I have tried this with others - they have been incapable of anything other than saying "NO" like a 2 year old). If anyone shows themselves to be open-minded, I am more than happy to discuss. But I will do this in PM fashion one on one, not in a public forum. You spend an hour of effort/research and you get a chorus of "NOs" from the "skeptics" with minimal efforts on their parts or verbatim quotes from other sites they often do not themselves read or understand. I find that most skeptics are incapable of stepping out of their disbelief and rampant skepticism. And I will say clearly, I am a skeptic about many things. It would be my guess you put on the skeptic glasses and never made a serious attempt to study or try the other side (more than a couple of hours) with an open mind.
I challenge this statement. Show us the proof. Of course it would be easier to only show your so called proof in a pm where you can manipulate gullible minds rather than out in the open where informed people can challenge what you say.
Yes really. Mathematics through humanities rely on the scientific method. Math to the point of proof Also you still appear to be grouping incompatible areas eg: philosophy/logic-. they do not necessarily fit together that way. Art/humanities same. Every one of your arguments listed in your post is ridiculous. .If you think they are dead on then you would have not noticed the silly suggestions each one makes and the daft conclusions you reached by them. They are ridiculous. I already asked can you not see how this statement of yours, like the rest in your list, is ridiculous... " - Avoid too much sun - causes melanomas. Whoops, actually, avoiding sun too much causes many more deaths (eg, Vitamin D)." Do you honestly need me to show you why it is ridiculous not to mention lacking in logical relation? I would imagine Biblical christianity is anything you want it to be, but the Bible as mentioned has information which is no more testable than the information contained within Robin Hood or King Arthur and sits in that domain where all fantasy resides. Not along with science. You made a list of silly and ridiculous statements to try and show flaws in science and to suggest science declares itself to be something it does not. All in order, apparently, to give some sort of credit to religion. You brought religion to science. That, I humbly suggest, is where you make a second big mistake.
"Yes really. Mathematics through humanities rely on the scientific method. Math to the point of proof " I don't think you really understand the definition of scientific method. You wield it like a 3 year old wields a gun. Everything is not based on "the scientific method." Did you ever study complex computer science/math topics like proof-by-induction or proof-by-contradiction? Math is based on fundamental mathematical principles, not "the scientific methods." That is one reason that mathematics is considered more precise than the sciences. Math is provable, science tends to be theoretic & empirical. Once a mathematic principle has been proven, it is not undone by more research or discoveries. Science is constantly refined and honed by new information. "Also you still appear to be grouping incompatible areas eg: philosophy/logic-. they do not necessarily fit together that way. Art/humanities same." Logic and philosophy don't relate? Where did you get your education? "Every one of your arguments listed in your post is ridiculous. .If you think they are dead on then you would have not noticed the silly suggestions each one makes and the daft conclusions you reached by them. They are ridiculous. I already asked can you not see how this statement of yours, like the rest in your list, is ridiculous..." Disprove, don't assert "Avoid too much sun - causes melanomas. Whoops, actually, avoiding sun too much causes many more deaths (eg, Vitamin D). --> Do you honestly need me to show you why it is ridiculous not to mention lacking in logical relation?" Again, you wander around with little understanding of what you are saying. This is now a strongly held principle. Try doing a little research on the effects of vitamin D and its recently discovered involvments on various aspects on human health. The early warnings about skin cancer from sun exposure were nice, but avoiding the sun is much worse. TRY READING A FEW MEDICAL/NUTRITIONAL STUDIES!!! Your arguments are painfully inept. "I would imagine Biblical christianity is anything you want it to be, but the Bible as mentioned has information which is no more testable than the information contained within Robin Hood or King Arthur and sits in that domain where all fantasy resides. Not along with science." Yes - you imagine much in your responses, that is clear. It is abundantly obvious you never spent much time on this subject. You assume without knowledge and make statements that make it obvious that you have never given much serious thought to the subject. Try studying the field of "debate". Most of what you say could be carved up easier than a Thanksgiving turkey by academicians. You speak much, and offer little except strong words and your own opinions. If you are going to disagree, at least do your homework. "You made a list of silly and ridiculous statements to try and show flaws in science and to suggest science declares itself to be something it does not. All in order, apparently, to give some sort of credit to religion. You brought religion to science. That, I humbly suggest, is where you make a second big mistake. " Disprove, don't assert If all you can do is try to disagree or urinate on things, then this conversation is done. Statements like "Don't you see how ridiculous this is?" have no value.