Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
You did, I thought only my brother had a skull thickness approaching the slab under Madison Square Garden.
From yesterdays opinion.
Now what?
Trust me, you can't argue with him. He believes that his own emotional inferences equal physical evidence.
Really, Dan, don't bother.
Federal judges are empowered to decide federal questions, and Congress gave them the power to create appropriate remedies in 28 USC 2201 & 2202.
This is what I'm discovering.
FRegards,
If you cared to word your question unambiguously, the answer would be unambiguous, too. The answer is, "Yes, I have cited something that supports my assertions, namely the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws."
What tests can I use to objectively prove the creationists' claims?
I've already told you science is not only about "objective proofs." It functions primarily on reason and reasonable evidence. Take any physical object and observe it for a period of time. Does it behave predictably? If so, that is one piece of evidence for intelligent design. Are you able to observe it in the first place? That, too, is a piece of evidence for intelligent design. Does this objectively prove intelligent design? No, and it doesn't have to in order to be scientific.
Under what conditions can creationism be objectively proven one way or the other?
There you again on the "objectively proven" binge. The most convincing argument against intelligent design would be for particle matter to behave erractically or disintegrate altogether. This tends to happen very rarely, so the evidence against intelligent design seems nearly non-existent in that regard.
Well, FR is meant to be about fun isn't it. Sometimes these crevo threads are way too serious (myself to the fore of the grim faced hatchet-men).
It is getting harder to tell.
I see by your tag line, that that is true.
Could you please post a link to the proof of a proven theory? Thanks.
You and me both. I'd love to see their donor list; wonder if Soros (or one of his front groups) is on it.
I also wonder how many of the FReepers who claim to be creationists or IDists are in fact ringers from DU or some such place salting FR with juicy quotes ot mine later.
Truth is, as someone pointed out on the Hovind thread, I wonder how much ID stuff is sincere, and how much is a cynical rip-off, like Uri Geller, the people who conduct seances, et al.
Ah, I see. So your pet subject (apparently the phrase "separation of church and state") must be the context whereby we discuss this subject. Anyone who interprets the argument in some other context must be dense....
I, and apparently most of the posters on this thread, seem to be comfortable with the CONCEPT of separation of church and state as a driving principal behind modern jurisprudence, even though it originates in case law, and is not specifically stated in so many words in the constitution. The argument that I thought was transpiring here was whether Intelligent Design constitutes a religious belief, or a competing theory to Evolution. Although, I must admit, there are several posters who seem to be advocating the teaching of religion in public schools.
Now, wait a minute.
Intelligent design, as defined by Wikipedia, makes the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."
Meaning that a sentient being (or something) had its hand in the creation of life, the universe, and everything as we know it.
I truly don't believe that most of the people pushing for intelligent design to be taught in science class, would consider that this sentient force capable of creating (designing) life to be a creature from another world or dimension.
They undoubtedly believe that this sentient force must be the being most people call "God" in one language or another.
So, intelligent design is religion in disguise trying to force its way into a science classroom, and while I have absolutely no problem with the idea of intelligent design being taught in school (or classes about religion for that matter), it should not be taught in science class because it is an alternative to science, not science!
Now...if a public school curriculum includes a mandatory class that teaches that this or that particular religion (or religious belief) is the one true religion/belief, then a line has been crossed.
It would be the same as forcing medical schools to teach Voodoo rites as an alternative technique for curing disease.
Now, here's my problem with the idea of intelligent design...it argues that we exist because our organisms where created by some greater force in such a way that we could survive in the world as we know it.
It has at its center, the idea that since we were created out of nothing, there is no available proof to support the idea.
In other words, since man did not exist until created by this omnipotent entity, everything that is found is either man, or not man.
It's a retroactive explanation to molded to support a pre-existing idea.
The opposite of course being the argument that we exist today because this is the form that was able to exist and thrive given the prevailing conditions on this planet.
All in all, I don't believe that intelligent design should be taught in science class any more than I believe that it should be taught in Sunday school.
And you and yours as well my friend.
Bwahahahahahahah! See below:
I've already told you science is not only about "objective proofs." It functions primarily on reason and reasonable evidence. Take any physical object and observe it for a period of time. Does it behave predictably? If so, that is one piece of evidence for intelligent design. Are you able to observe it in the first place? That, too, is a piece of evidence for intelligent design. Does this objectively prove intelligent design? No, and it doesn't have to in order to be scientific.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!! My bird behaves in an unpredictable manner.
As you say, evidence does not have to be scientific or objective to be considered valid. By your standard, my bird's unpredictable behavior is one piece of evidence that that ID (creationism) is an invalid theory.
There you again on the "objectively proven" binge. The most convincing argument against intelligent design would be for particle matter to behave erractically or disintegrate altogether. This tends to happen very rarely, so the evidence against intelligent design seems nearly non-existent in that regard.
Bwahahahahahahahaha!!
ID (creationism) is to science what the whole-word method of teaching was to english and spelling. Creationists don't need to prove anything using objective evidence. Simply believing is good enough. LOL!
My bird says your theory is full of beans.
I shouldn't jump into this foray, but sometimes I just can't resist....
"Take any physical object and observe it for a period of time. Does it behave predictably? If so, that is one piece of evidence for intelligent design."
That is merely evidence of existing physical forces regarding the behavior of said physical object. It says nothing of the specific nature or origin of those forces. Said physical object could move predictably because God said so. It could move predictably because tiny aliens are moving it, according to their own reasons. It could move predictably because gravity acts upon it in a specific way.
Your observation can tell you absolutely nothing about the origin, design, or lack thereof of those predictable forces.
The brief statement also pointed them to a book (Pandas) that was creationist (or at least creation wearing a false beard and glasses)
Roger Williams.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.