Is origins research actually a subject of the invisible? Yes!

why is there so much disagreement in origin subjects when they are claimed to be based on scientific methodology? Who is messing up here in making/rejecting conclusions where othewise science subjects never have such contentions.?

I suggest and conclude that this is because origin subjects are about invisible processes and events. it’s not intellectual failure of one side or the other in presenting or understanding positions.

In fact like religious ideas, or physics, or even atomic levels of biology, like germs etc etc EVERYTHING investigated is not clear to the human eye. germ theory was rejected well into the 19th century because they couldn’t see the germs. physics gain its prestige as more complicated because it was about invisible forces. So proving how these forces existed and worked was lauded as a brilliance above visible discoveries.

God, Christ, religion are all invisible, the bible says also its faith based on not seeing things,and so everyone cuts everyone slack about these conclusions. or rather do not dismiss the intellectual standing iof a person based on Religious conclusions.

Likewise origin subjects, like history ones, is a investigation into invisible things by using visable things. Sure it is. So why not cut everyone slack on this?

In fact  since biology, while visible, is more complicated to figure out its workings, and so healing/fixing it all, and physics which is invisible, practically in its actual force mechanisms,  can be more figured out THEN its demanding the origin biology must be the most complicated thing in the universe to figure out. Geology being second and the spiritual world excluded.

So origin research is a investigation of the invisible, its the most complicated, and the most demanding of a liberality in intellectual disagreement.

 

6 thoughts on “Is origins research actually a subject of the invisible? Yes!

  1. Byers:

    God, Christ, religion are all invisible, the bible says also its faith based on not seeing things,and so everyone cuts everyone slack about these conclusions. or rather do not dismiss the intellectual standing iof a person based on Religious conclusions.

    That made me smile.

  2. In fact since biology, while visible, is more complicated to figure out its workings, and so healing/fixing it all, and physics which is invisible, practically in its actual force mechanisms,  can be more figured out THEN its demanding the origin biology must be the most complicated thing in the universe to figure out.

    What a sentence.

  3. GlenDavidson:
    Unless you have standards, and insist on following the visible evidence, of course.

    Which IDists/creationists don’t.

    Glen Davidson

    Yes. Conclusions in biology origins demands standards. They call it the scientific method. A high standard of investigation that can demand confidence in its conclusions.
    However invoking SCIENCE is not the standard.
    The methodology is the standard.
    ID/YEC criticisms are that this standard is flawed in biology origin conclusions.
    Not just wrong conclusions.
    As I said these are invisable things. So the standard should be greater and is very difficult to figure things out.
    Yes biology origins is the most intellectually difficult thing in the visable universe slightly ahead of biology not within sight.
    I think evolutionism superficially jumped to conclusions.
    Only now being realized amongst the above average educated people.

  4. keiths:
    Byers:

    That made me smile.

    I guess you mean that people don’t accept religious conclusions wihile accepting they are intelligent people.
    i think they do. WE learned this long ago.
    now to do it for invisible origin subjects.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.