Posted on 09/22/2006 2:09:33 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Free Republic is currently running a poll on this subject:
Do you think creationism or intelligent design should be taught in science classes in secondary public schools as a competing scientific theory to evolution?You can find the poll at the bottom of your "self search" page, also titled "My Comments," where you go to look for posts you've received.
I don't know what effect -- if any -- the poll will have on the future of this website's science threads. But it's certainly worth while to know the general attitude of the people who frequent this website.
Science isn't a democracy, and the value of scientific theories isn't something that's voted upon. The outcome of this poll won't have any scientific importance. But the poll is important because this is a political website. How we decide to educate our children is a very important issue. It's also important whether the political parties decide to take a position on this. (I don't think they should, but it may be happening anyway.)
If you have an opinion on this subject, go ahead and vote.
You claimed that they got their Vitamin C from grasses that they ate during the thaw.
When in fact they get their vitamin C from the skin of the whale.
Sorry, you can't wiggle out of this one, you blew it again, just as you continue to blow it with your, absorbic acid is not Vitamin C screed that you are on.
Pretty simple. Either you have an alternative or you don't.
= = = =
No wonder the mathematics of the impossibility of EVO is so hard for some to fathom.
Construing reality's 3 options in a situation seems to be too high a leap of faith or mental thoughtfulness or something . . .
1. One has one or more alternatives
2. One doesn't have an alternative
3. One has one or more alternatives and prefers to avoid posting them
Given that 2 of the above seemed to tax that particular construction on reality . . . and given my other preference and priorities . . . I won't tax that perspective further along those lines ! LOL.
Denial is so much more convenient and comfortable for some than facing facts, BB. But you already knew that.
Please provide a specific reference. Thus far I have been unable to locate any references that support your claim.
The scientific literature is completely open and can be examined in a good library. The link Dimensio gave you at Wik is good.
In other words, your faith in God is no different that your faith that your car will start in the morning?
Either your faith in God is fundamentally different than your trust in electrical systems or it is not.
Which is it?
= = = = =
What's so difficult?
If one is looking at the facet of the reality diamond about the general topic of faith . . .
FAITH IS FAITH. Virtually all faith or TRUST, if one prefers . . . operates similarly . . . is, essentially . . . quite similar . . . perhaps even the same.
If one is looking at the facet of the reality diamond about God and one's relationship with God and one's focus on God, then
FAITH IN GOD is quite UNIQUE BECAUSE OF WHO GOD IS. And, also because of God's embellishing, strengthening, adding to one's faith in Him as one excercises said faith.
It's not really that difficult.
It's interesting that the pontificators clearly exercising the most FAITH in CHAOTIC CHANCE PLUS TIME yielding order . . . are the ones hyper factideous, hyper frenetic about how OTHERS construe OTHERS' FAITH! What a paradox!
Perhaps there's some unconscious obsessive something about faith given the great quantities of it they have to have to make 'CHAOTIC CHANCE PLUS TIME YIELDS ORDER' work at all.
Probably not unless they are Philosophers of Science. However, its pretty much a given that the majority of biologists do deal with the Theory of Evolution or the fact of Evolution to varying degrees.
As much as you view yourself the world's foremost authority on just about everything I suspect that no matter how loudly you scream or how often you repeat your misbegotten beliefs I doubt very much that *any* biologist will take you seriously and change their approach to their research. In fact I suspect that if they took any notice of you at all it would be as a minor amusement.
You just aren't important enough.
My point is not that your faith in God isn't special, in fact I am trying to get you to realize that faith in God is very different than the trust we have that things will behave consistently.
If you conflate the two meanings in an attempt to make science look like a religion you are guilty of equivocation, plain and simple.
= = = = =
Wrong again.
God Loving; God fearing child-like faith . . . is very akin to . . . child-like faith in the child's loving earthly father. Pretty basic, really. Oh, it can reach magnificent heights and embellishments . . . but it's certainly basic in foundation and origin. And it's SPECIAL because of WHO GOD IS. It's common because of the human side of it.
I don't conflate anything. That's just reality.
Observers with INTEGRITY, OBSERVE REALITY and accept it as it is. LOL.
One doesn't need to lift a gnat's eyelash to make science look like religion.
Science:
1. has a list of dogma quite similar to religious dogma and defended just as fiercely and illogically as that of some religions.
2. a high priesthood who act as grantors of rights and privileges akin to such granted by the high priests of various religions.
3. a system of education and gate keeping to said lofty ecclesiastical positions depending on demonstrated lock-step kosherness with the doctrines of the faith of science is very much similar to the religious education systems of several religions.
4. a system of propaganda creation, vetting and distribution probably more strict, narrow, rigid and out of touch with objective reality at least as much as that of many religions.
. . . the list could go on . . .
SCIENCE HAS PROVEN ITSELF TO BE A RELIGION BY IT'S PRACTICES FOR MANY DECADES, if not centuries.
"Godel described the cheating at post 137, and then named the cheaters in post 186. One of the named persons admitted cheating in post 189, and the other admitted it in post 279."Can you get anything correct? Perhaps you thought that everyone was too lazy to check?
Okay ballot stuffers. If you need to vote 100 times for your option you automatically lose. I and others will assume you think so few people hold your position that you feel it is necessary to cheat. I have seen 2 different creationists cheating, but not a single evolutionist. Perhaps this in itself can tell us something important about the morals and ethics of those who hold each belief.Post 38
I'm gonna work on the cookie checking code to try and eliminate ballot stuffers next time. I guess I had too much faith in people's honesty.
38 Posted on 03/01/2001 09:23:03 PST by Godel [ Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | Top | Last ]
Evidently the practitioners of scientific blind faith
are not overly . . . flexible in their understandings of faith.
They keep trying to cram my faith into the supposedly tidy little boxes of their religion of science notions on faith.
Thankfully, my faith won't fit in such small boxes and within such narrow, rigid, false constraints.
"Yeah, the Chinese parents were consistently pretty sharp folks. Easy to love, easy to respect."
Do I detect the misuse of an appeal to authority?
= = = = =
What arrogant, cheeky, destructive double-bind snobish hogwash!
YOU FOLKS asked me WHO WOULD WANT . . .
I merely answered the question honestly.
I guess honesty is not wanted by the EVO folks any more than facts about mathematical probabilities are.
The common definition of Evolution - the variation of allele frequency within a population due to differential replication - is beyond reasonable doubt.
What makes your uneducated opinion more valid than their informed conclusions?
The evo posters here aren't the ones acting smug, you are.
= = = =
Not so fast hotshot. There's no solid evidence that I really seek more than objectively reasonable parity.
And, there you go again ASSUMING about me.
So, which part of my high quality, well earned PhD are you calling uneducated?
Is being insulting a major habit or a minor one? Normally, it's considered reasonably kosher when one dishes it out to take it equitably, peacably.
A statement in which you accuse someone of having an uneducated opinion without any knowledge of them is the epitome of arrogance, self-righteousness, and extreme smugness.
= = = =
INDEED, INDEED!
Alas, I suspect that you realize that "educated" has been defined as "agrees with EVOS!"
There are a myriad of references to the fact Polar People get vitamin C from the animals they eat.
No doubt the Sumerians had this same debate.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem, coupled with an extremely selective vision disorder.
I wouldn't have believed it, if I hadn't seen it with my own eyes.
You actually wrote that?
I would have thought that someone would have been writing that to you, not vice versa, because the link you gave actually completely disproves the point you are trying to make.
and you have completely missed it.
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.