nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
→Secular Science: yes, but...
:::I don't want to get into an argument on semantics and whether it is exactly the correct term, but there is a difference between refusing to consider a supernatural cause and allowing for a supernatural cause. You can't measure/test/observe the supernatural, but you can deduce a supernatural cause and observe the effects of a supernatural cause. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
:::I don't want to get into an argument on semantics and whether it is exactly the correct term, but there is a difference between refusing to consider a supernatural cause and allowing for a supernatural cause. You can't measure/test/observe the supernatural, but you can deduce a supernatural cause and observe the effects of a supernatural cause. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 29 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I just thought that measure/test/observe was just about the entire basis of the scientific method. I've been known to pull B's in science classes though, so I could be wrong here. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I just thought that measure/test/observe was just about the entire basis of the scientific method. I've been known to pull B's in science classes though, so I could be wrong here. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:09, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yes, measuring, testing, and observing are the basis of the scientific method. But we are talking about origins science here. See ''origins science'' in [[science]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 30 April 2007 (EDT)