Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo are you claiming that until people figured out that the sun got its power from nuclear fusion, the sun was supernatural?
I don't think you're considering occurrences which we are not able to reconcile with known rules of nature.
Unless and until such time that any occurrence can be explained via natural laws/rules, it is by definition a supernatural event.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt is NOT supernatural just because we don't understand it. Many things about quantum mechanics we don't understand, yet there is no reason to say it then works outside the laws of nature of this universe. We just don't understand everything about the laws of nature.
It is supernatural if it is beyond our understanding of how nature works--- and it is especially supernatural if it is beyond how nature works.
So we either gain a new understanding of how nature works, or it (the event) reveals itself to be beyond how nature works... either way, unless/until it can be explained by our understanding of how nature works, i ...[text shortened]... the bounds of nature's domain (also entirely plausible and possible, given historical accounts).
It is perfectly fine to say "We don't understand this". There is no need to then declare it above nature. It is above Our understanding of nature, yes, but nature is bigger then what we understand about it.
We don't understand everything about gravity. That doesn't make it partially supernatural. We just don't quite understand it.
Originally posted by Great King RatLet's examine this a bit closer.
It is NOT supernatural just because we don't understand it. Many things about quantum mechanics we don't understand, yet there is no reason to say it then works outside the laws of nature of this universe. We just don't understand everything about the laws of nature.
It is perfectly fine to say "We don't understand this". There is no need to then d ...[text shortened]... g about gravity. That doesn't make it partially supernatural. We just don't quite understand it.
Gravity, for example.
Speaking locally, the expression for acceleration due to gravity:
Force acting on the object/mass of the object = acceleration produced in the object.
The above can be expressed using a formula, but we don't see a formula or any parts of the same when we see (or predict) the effects of gravity in this consideration any more than we see the words and phrases which describe the same.
Our words and formulas do not make gravity do what it does; as a force within nature, it simply continues in the motion it was set into upon its creation.
The phrases and formulas are for our benefit.
However, anything beyond our field of knowledge which seems to defy that same field is, by definition, supernatural.
What we do not understand about gravity is overwhelmingly what we have not experienced.
Localized gravity is nearly comprehensively understood.
In the event that the localized gravity effects were suspended in ways other than already known--- with no other perceivable influences--- we would be left with no other conclusion (even if only temporary) than supernatural causes.
Why?
Because the articulated laws of nature are for our benefit and our benefit alone.
The scribbling we ascribe to nature have no effect on reality; they just help us decimate and classify the information for more organized thought.
Sudden departure from the scribbling in areas previously established would be emphatically beyond our understanding, thus super-natural.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe laws of nature as we describe them are predictable and falsifiable.
And it is my claim that if it happens, then that is how nature works, so it is incoherent to talk of 'beyond how nature works', actually happening.
If the world suddenly stopped turning on its axis without any measurable influence, there isn't a scientist on the face of the planet who wouldn't claim supernatural forces were at play.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou clearly don't know much about scientists.
The laws of nature as we describe them are predictable and falsifiable.
If the world suddenly stopped turning on its axis without any measurable influence, there isn't a scientist on the face of the planet who wouldn't claim supernatural forces were at play.
And as for your basic claim, per your tradition, you have said something ridiculous and will spend the next 50 posts trying to defend it rather than admit that it is ridiculous. Have fun.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSome atheists on here will never admit there is anything that is supernatural even when they are shown proof.
The laws of nature as we describe them are predictable and falsifiable.
If the world suddenly stopped turning on its axis without any measurable influence, there isn't a scientist on the face of the planet who wouldn't claim supernatural forces were at play.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYeah, I'll try and reply to this tomorrow, but it would be appear you just cobbled together a bunch of words in the hope that any of it would sound profound.
Let's examine this a bit closer.
Gravity, for example.
Speaking locally, the expression for acceleration due to gravity:
[b]Force acting on the object/mass of the object = acceleration produced in the object.
The above can be expressed using a formula, but we don't see a formula or any parts of the same when we see (or predict) the effects of ...[text shortened]... areas previously established would be emphatically beyond our understanding, thus super-natural.[/b]
Honestly, very little of this makes any sense.
Why, oh, why, do you theists often go through such ridiculous lenghts to try and stick to ideas that are very, very clearly wrong? It's baffling.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAre you thinking of paranormal levitation?
Let's examine this a bit closer.
Gravity, for example.
Speaking locally, the expression for acceleration due to gravity:
[b]Force acting on the object/mass of the object = acceleration produced in the object.
The above can be expressed using a formula, but we don't see a formula or any parts of the same when we see (or predict) the effects of ...[text shortened]... areas previously established would be emphatically beyond our understanding, thus super-natural.[/b]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levitation_(paranormal)
Originally posted by FabianFnasBruce Malone spent 27 years working as a research leader for the Dow Chemical Corporation, has a degree in chemical engineering, and is responsible for key innovations which have resulted in 18 patents.
Bruce Malone is a fraud. He is not a scientist. He preach his opinion, not more than that.
Just another creationist trying to redefine "science" to get credibility of his religious views.
The main difference between a scientist and an engineer is that a scientist focuses on the unknown while the engineer focuses on the "known".
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsSo you did a cut and paste job. Because he did work for Dow and got patents has nothing to do with his stance on creationism. If he tried his creationist tactics at Dow where you try to destroy other people's work instead of doing his own to build up science, he would have been fired forthwith, here is the door you creationist assshole, goodbye.
Bruce Malone spent 27 years working as a research leader for the Dow Chemical Corporation, has a degree in chemical engineering, and is responsible for key innovations which have resulted in 18 patents.
The main difference between a scientist and an engineer is that a scientist focuses on the unknown while the engineer focuses on the "known".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm7rE_UyvMM
No, he saved his skullduggery for later when he left Dow. The kind of 'science' he does as a creationist would never have flown in an actual scientific setting, he would have been run out of town.
He made the publication called Encylopedia of Loons:
http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2011/09/248-bruce-malone.html