Mathematician/Bioethicist challenges concept of whether DNA is naturalistic

[River Jordan]

Of course not.

Exactly. It's plainly obvious that none of those things you claimed were in scripture are actually in scripture.

That's not a good thing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes it does. What's it to you?

Nothing.

But it should be to you.

After all, if scientists are working on a theory of everything then, according to your words, scientists are working on nothing.

Since ... you know ... something that answers everything answers nothing.

 

[River Jordan]

Yes or no:

Are scientists working on a theory of everything?

We covered that already. They are working on trying to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics (as I understand it), and they decided to name the theory they're hoping to develop "the theory of everything".

So to reiterate, do you understand the difference between an idea being researched and the colloquial label given to that idea?

 

[AV1611VET]

Exactly. It's plainly obvious that none of those things you claimed were in scripture are actually in scripture.

Not by name -- right?

That's how abortion got through.

Scientists changed "child in the womb" to "fetus."

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nothing.

But it should be to you.

After all, if scientists are working on a theory of everything then, according to your words, scientists are working on nothing.

Since ... you know ... something that answers everything answers nothing.

Then it's a good thing that many scientists suspect that it's an impossibility.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not by name -- right?

That's how abortion got through.

Scientists changed "child in the womb" to "fetus."

... and you call me a broken record.

 

[River Jordan]

After all: Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

More accurately it's "under no circumstances whatsoever is AV's interpretation of the Bible to be contradicted".

And as we've seen, at least some of what he claims is in the Bible isn't actually in there, and some of his interpretations are really unique and not shared by most Christians.

 

[River Jordan]

Not by name -- right?

That's a hilarious way to admit it's not in there.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

More accurately it's "under no circumstances whatsoever is AV's interpretation of the Bible to be contradicted".

And as we've seen, at least some of what he claims is in the Bible isn't actually in there, and some of his interpretations are really unique and not shared by most Christians.

Oh, believe me... WE KNOW.

 

[River Jordan]

Oh, believe me... WE KNOW.

Phew!

 

[AV1611VET]

We covered that already.

No we haven't.

But Warden has.

Warden is very good at answering questions as asked, and not try to weasel around my points.

(Of course he's dealt with me much longer and knows what I'm after.)

They are working on trying to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics (as I understand it), and they decided to name the theory they're hoping to develop "the theory of everything".

Yes, I know.

A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory, or master theory is a hypothetical singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe.

Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.

SOURCE

So to reiterate, do you understand the difference between an idea being researched and the colloquial label given to that idea?

Yes.

I'm familiar with scientists labeling things that usually end up biting them in the rear.

In this case though, they labeled something colloquially that has a negative connotation attached to it.

If you want to believe that "God did it" explains nothing because it explains everything, then you should apply that philosophy to your science as well.

But in this case, science can take a hike, can't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

Then it's a good thing that many scientists suspect that it's an impossibility.

That's neat.

Scientists working on something that other scientists suspect is an impossibility.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

Maybe they suspect it's an impossibility as well, but are working on it because they want the money?

 

[AV1611VET]

More accurately it's "under no circumstances whatsoever is AV's interpretation of the Bible to be contradicted".

Let's see yours.

And as we've seen, at least some of what he claims is in the Bible isn't actually in there, and some of his interpretations are really unique and not shared by most Christians.

Fastest Pew research I've seen in a long time.

Do you have a percentage on that?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's a hilarious way to admit it's not in there.

You mean like "trinity" or "rapture"?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's neat.

Scientists working on something that other scientists suspect is an impossibility.

Doesn't surprise me at all.

Maybe they suspect it's an impossibility as well, but are working on it because they want the money?

I remember, once upon a time, you said that you held scientists to a higher degree than anyone else. That was just an out and out lie, wasn't it?

 

[River Jordan]

Yes, I know.

Then we did cover it after all!

Yes.

Then hopefully you understand that "the theory of everything" does't actually mean it explains absolutely everything. It doesn't explain why my dog acts the way she does for example.

In this case though, they labeled something colloquially that has a negative connotation attached to it.

It does? How?

If you want to believe that "God did it" explains nothing because it explains everything, then you should apply that philosophy to your science as well.

We do. In science (and keep in mind that's the context here) "God did that" can't be an explanation because it's not testable. I'm pretty sure we've gone over that before.

So as a Christian I can believe God did something, but I can't turn that into a scientific explanation for it.

But in this case, science can take a hike, can't it?

In what case, the theory of everything? Why would you say that when none of us know what it would even look like?

 

[AV1611VET]

I remember, once upon a time, you said that you held scientists to a higher degree than anyone else. That was just an out and out lie, wasn't it?

Nope.

I make a distinction between scientists who are called to be scientists ... and hierlings.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Nope.

I make a distinction between scientists who are called to be scientists ... and hierlings.

But that's not a distinction you can make in good faith or honesty.

 

[River Jordan]

Let's see yours.

No thanks.

Fastest Pew research I've seen in a long time.

Do you have a percentage on that?

The last survey of views on evolution in the developed world I saw showed that a large majority of people are just fine with it. Pairing that data with the number of Christians in those countries shows that most Christians don't share your "science can take a hike" views.

Plus, large denominations like Catholics and Orthodox Christians have publicly stated that there's no conflict between the two.

 

[AV1611VET]

So as a Christian I can believe God did something, but I can't turn that into a scientific explanation for it.

That's because science is myopic.

(They just don't know it.)