Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Ianesco would be proud....
" yet science seeks to explain ALL aspects under God's purview, including the human soul."
No, science has nothing for or against to say about the existence of a soul.
" There is NO field where science does not say: I can explain that, God; you are not needed here."
You are mistaking the epistemological reality that science has limits (the existence of God being outside it's scope) with the claim that science says there is no God.
Given we've talked in the past about Biophysical Society meetings we've attended, I'd have thought you might be aware I know you are a biophysicist. But, as has been established, you are dim and slow.
Given this one would also think you were familiar with the term "dig" as in a dig at someone. But again, you are a bit slow and dim.
My credentials are I am not slow and dimwitted.
I won't get in to the issue of whether all biophysicists are biologists.
Lastly, in response to my initial comment, your reply was only about your hurt feelings over the tender dig at you (the if you were a biologist crack) not about the statement.
All your paramagnetism belongs to us.
Are the society meetings still this time of year? Oughtn't you be on the way? Where is it this year? I quite enjoyed the Biophysical Society meetings. Perhaps I'll go next year and I can laugh at you in person.
Take care friend.
Spam-a-lot.
"The point is the chicken or the egg question and mans beginning are the same."
How?
As predicted.
"It's self explanatory."
So you will have no trouble explaining it. Go for it. :)
When they figure out what came first the chicken or the egg they will figure out how mans existance came into being. There is NO missing link.
"(3) presumes without a whit of evidence that scientists working on the issue are doing so in bad faith,"
Actually, I have first hand evidence in that during my PhD studies in the late 80’s and working with DoD and NASA on a variety of space programs we kept hearing what a cash cow
"global warming" was going to be in the coming years. I talked with one researcher after another who was cashing in the scheme. We all knew it was a liberal BS push to attack petroleum, chemical, and human population issues. Hell, even the public knew it, but repeating that lie seems to have had it affect. People like you now believe it to be absolutely true. In the 80’s I worked with the DMSP program, which measures energy around the planet 24 x 7. When the first global warming alarms were raised, along with the conclusion that man should stop polluting the earth, stop driving cars, and a whole host of other liberal agenda items, the DMSP group was laughing its ass off. They had several decades of real scientific evidence that not a single shred of this “evidence” of global warming was true.
“Global Warming” is just another liberal eco-terrorist attack on humans.
It's not just money (although it is money) --there's that ego thing going that you often find with retired, out-of-work, untenured or otherwise marginalized "scientists"--
I'm afraid I disagree. You seem remarkably slow on the uptake, to the extent I find it questionable you could possibly make a living in science.
My resume is a matter of public record. Yours is a fantasy.
Nothing more pathetic than someone who puts down the qualifications of others and then, when challenged on his own, hides behind anonymity.
"That's not what Behe said."
Wriggle and squirm from this, if you will. Theories don't have to be true. I love it. He just wants to redefine scientific theory so that he can get ID under the bar, but he has to acknowledge that his redefinition also lets astrology in under the bar too. "a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences" is only a small part of what every other scientist in the world regards as required for theories.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Put more simply, he wants conjectures hypotheses and theories to be lumped together under a single heading, which is "theory". Disengenuous, mad, charlatan? Your call.
My guess is you are not offering me a grant.
I find it interesting that you think it somehow wise or necessary to advertise yourself on an internet forum that is not even a scientific forum.
I came to free republic many years ago because of its political nature and to participate in political discussion and information distribution.
When I want to say something about scientific matters I will write an article also discuss topics of interest with friends or others in various fields. I cannot for the life of me understand why any scientist would hang out at a political internet forum to use superficial discussions of biology or other sciences as a means to participate in a culture war relating to religious beliefs.
I find it very strange.
It is also not appropriate for you to try and obtain or demand personal information from people. You have a strange psychological reason for wanting to advertise yourself, fine. But no one else is required to give specifics on their personal life or such information.
So my friend, believe anything you want to believe. I am a janitor in Chula Vista having recently crossed the Rio Grande (illegally of course) from old Mexico.
Pro-ID school board members in Dover, PA swept from office
______________________________
Presidential politics: Dover is in York County, which supported George W. Bush in the last two presidential elections. According to unofficial vote totals for 2004, Bush received 114,621 votes and John Kerry received 63,628 votes. [my note: that's about 64% for Bush!]
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/politicalInfo.php?locIndex=275620
________________________________
And note these two GOP figures backing away from ID in science classes:
Your #629 - I would expect that. I've never seen it myself, but there are always has-been scientists looking for a comeback. Just look at the asteroid issue. When there seemed to be money to be had every scientist and organization came out of the woodworks. When the money dried up, so did the story.
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.