tevans9129;n45092 said:
Did you read my statement?
“It depends on your definition of "modern science" as it relates to the creation of the universe in the
tevans9129;n45092 said:
beginning. If that includes the universe being created from nothing and that "modern science" cannot answer where space, matter, energy and time came from, "in the beginning" then the answer is yes.”
Did you notice, creation of the universe in the beginning”? What do you infer from that phrase?
I did not see an answer to the two questions.
My, such self restraint with all the bold and colored fonts! I do commend you on resisting all-caps, however.
Why thank you WW, “the bold and colored fonts” were for attention since, from my perspective, it seems to me that you can be selective in what you wish to see and what you ignore, IMO.
Anyway, I actually doubt you even understand what you are saying.
OK, then we both have our doubts, would you agree?
Do you accept that modern science dealing with everything after the big bang has a fair handle on how things came to be? Yes, or no? If yes, than we can have a different, and far more intelligent conversation.
No, modern science has “a fair handle” on many things, hypothesis, theories, speculation and conjecture on some, if I understand your meaning of “fair handle” correctly.
BTW, I did notice the implied paradigm of an “intelligent conversation” only being possible if one accepts whatever science suggests. My idea of an intelligent, productive conversation is when all questions are answered with plausible, verifiable, clear and straightforward answers.
BTW, by modern science, I assumed you understood any of the empirical sciences following the Western Enlightenment 300 years ago.
I think so, using the definition of “empirical” as being…”originating in or based on observation or experience *empirical data* : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment”…duplicated, tested and observed.
“This chapter discusses the role of inconsistency in the empirical sciences. It distinguishes the various ways in which contradictions may occur in the corpus of science, and argues that while a contradiction may make revision desirable in some contexts, this may not be the case in others. The possibility of producing scientific theories based on a paraconsistent logic may well increase the power of scientific theorizing.”
“inconsistency in the empirical sciences…contradictions” No ambiguity possible there, pure science, correct?
That's what I'm referring to, not the pseudosciences, such as Creationism.”
Is it your custom to make allegations that you cannot prove? Can you offer some names of those that claim Scripture is science? Do you think there is anything in scripture that agrees with science and if so, can you quote examples? Does anyone claim that the account given in Genesis of the creation is science? You seem to like to imply that but I do not see it coming from Bible believing Christians.
Just because that happened in contemporary times, it has nothing to do with what I thinking of, which is anything part of modernity, not some premodernity mixed with modern artifacts calling itself rational, when it's not yet to modernity.
My goodness, that is certainly impressive, quite the opinion but no proof of anything. More to follow.