B. John Jones

I don't know. We haven't decided yet what logic is. Endorsed.

Against the hater of that Great and Mighty One who loves you.

Thank you. It's interesting that all the very remarkable contributors firmly believed in God--Jesus of Nazareth to be precise, all the way to the time our chief scientific thinker, Einstein. Okay, are sherds of pottery or human tools unearthed, whose origins are from ancient times a part of nature? How about fossilized wood? Papyrus? Visible script on papyrus? Ancient literature? Scripture? Aren't these specimens of nature? It's very natural for organisms, especially humans, to construct, and reconstruct, disassemble and reassemble, interpret and reinterpret. Every specimen of nature is part of the evidence. Absolutely. The one thing that can't be approached scientifically is where yours and my "thinker, feeler, sensor," goes, or becomes when our limbs and fibers return to the earth. Agreed?

You just spent 3 (or 4) paragraphs trying to not answer a question that you could have easily answered in one sentence, in which you said, "your question is too demanding." Very logical, but bad logic.

That's logical. But it's bad logic. Good logic: Science is the body of knowledge gathered through observations of nature, using free and various methods and means, usually rigorous; also those methods and means. Nature is still nature and science is science, 2 distinct entities. A stethoscope is not a biological process. Will another member please endorse string's definition of "logic?" Yeah? And a good poker player keeps his business with the good poker players. So if I were really the "fish," I would to be the first to "tell" everybody about the "fish," wouldn't I? I mean, if I were a "really smart" fish.

It's not impossible but modern science is so inconsistent because you guys won't put it out right. I'm asking you a very simple task and your skirting around it as if your afraid to commit. I was born in 1975. The antichrist was spoken of nearly 2 millennia ago. So I don't think I invented the charges against them.

You understand half of it. Truth is, it can be as complex or as simple as you choose. I prefer to rest in my work.

You didn't answer the question, as asked. Science can't be compared to nature. Science is one very useful way of looking at nature.

Isn't the quantity of new things you can potentially learn about people, people groups and peoples, infinitely more than the quantity of things you now know?

You can't do it. You guys can't provide a simple definition of logic. Originally, there was a simple definition. You guys can say what you want, and as long as you can silence the people outside you unity, you think you hold sway. A unity divided will not stand.

If a child uses his 10 fingers to count apples and oranges aren't his 2 hands a mathematical model? If a mature man uses a "simple" calculator to survey land, is his calculator an accurate instrument? Has a living, functioning human being or scientist ever lived a full life having never revisited and re-partitioning a question? I didn't ask for forms or adjectives. The noun, logic. Define it. One definition. Per person. One endorsement per definition.

How would I know. The original father of Dawkins and Darwin I guess. I don't know, the antichrist I guess. Or maybe Rome. Or the Romans. Give me 3 solid definitions of logic. With 1 endorsement each. 3 defs, one person per def.

False dichotomy. A magnifying glass is rigorous. Human observation by the human mind is rigorous.

Just because you tell me your name doesn't make it fact. But it is fact.

I've stated severally, "If modern science has contributed its claims to modern man, then let science hold sway. But if God, then let the church of the Hawaiian Islands rock the world." You yoursel(ves) have stated that the scientific community is "steely cold but unified." I highly doubt that. Your "unity" will fall because you reject the living God, Jesus of Nazareth. He's given you time to repent.

@Robbitybob, you know your real name. You could prove it to some, but you wouldn't be able to prove it to me if you wanted to would you? I'm stating something as fact. Rejecting it is your prerogative.

And a kingdom [unity] divided against itself will not stand. Fact. That's just a historical comment.

I'm not asking about permissions. How can there be unity with dissent?

How can there be unity with dissent?

"Natural Science" being, "Hmm, that leaf has a strange texture. I think I have a magnifying glass." "Formal Science" being, "Nope. Can't do that. Wrong process."

I'm asking for a measure, in your subjective opinion: on a scale from 1 to 10, 1 being "steely cold but strongly unified", 10 being "warm with plenty of room for dissent," how would you describe the scientific community?

No

But there are so many fields of science. Why should there be the absence of a field maintaining philosophy? It seems calculated to me.

What about the distance between the number (or complexity) of things you've learned about people and the potential number?

Is science maintained from it's philosophic origin, or is there a definitive break from philosophy? If science is maintained with philosophy, how do we ask scientific questions, and answer them, with integrity, without reference to ethos, pathos and logos? If this latter question is irrelevant because we don't maintain with philosophy, who decided science is removed from it's most natural definition: a discrete and ordered way to observe and study nature? I'm not a scientist, but looking at a leaf under a magnifying glass, or observing the patterns of the the night sky, in my judgment, is scientific. Relating historical, social, and all literary substance with science seems necessary to me. Inasmuch as math, anthropology and archeology are direct components of science, I believe every evidence should be admitted to the scientific process.