Skip to comments.
Evolution Disclaimer Supported
The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^
| 12/11/02
| WILL SENTELL
Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: Tribune7
As I understand it most of the "scientific" evidence Darrow presented in defense of Scopes has now been found to be false. I have to agree here. Darrow's primary evidence giver was Williams Jennings Bryan. I'm glad to see that you believe that Bryan's testimony has been found to be false.
Comment #402 Removed by Moderator
To: Doctor Stochastic
Bryan was questioned as a expert in the Bible. You're now claiming the Bible to be a science book?
To: Dr. Frank
For the record: I'd have disclaimers for all theories, if I had my druthers.Disclaimers for Group Theory, the Theory of Equations, Analytic Number Theory, Graph Theory, Multiplicative Number Theory, Chaos Theory, Probability Theory, K-Theory, Complexity Theory, Information Theory, Queueing Theory, M-Theory, Set Theory, Class Field Theory, Represenation Theory, too?
What is there to disclaim in these theories?
To: sallymag
I see, so if ANY scientific theory might possibly bring your bible into question, then it must be a load of BS?
I see, OK, well at least I understand where you stand, but I actually already knew that.
Oh, and by the way, PROVE it's ALL a bunch of BS, I would really like to see you try, or did some church elder tell you that and of course you believed him blindly? Never mind, I think I know the answer.
Good little sheep that I believe you are.
To: Tribune7
No. Just happy that you decided that Bryan had been proved wrong.
To: Physicist
Is Leslie, by any chance, your mother's maiden name? That's how I got my middle name.
407
posted on
12/14/2002 9:58:08 PM PST
by
js1138
To: Doctor Stochastic
I believe that all that needs to be done is that the TRUE definition of Theory is taught at the beginning of each science class.
This would put it all out front and NO one could say that they didn't have a clue what a theory actually was, and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats. but, as was said, they would never agree to such a thing. It would not go well with their religious agenda.
To: Doctor Stochastic
If you don't feel the Bible is a science book, then what did you take my words "scientific evidence" to mean?
To: Aric2000
and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats.I read that you home school your children. How can anyone shove anything down your throat in that context?
410
posted on
12/14/2002 10:19:17 PM PST
by
AndrewC
To: Tribune7
The bible is NOT a science book, it is a religious book, a philosophy book if you will. It is definitely NOT science.
God is not a part of science, God cannot be. god cannot be proven nor disproven, therefore it is a question for philosophers, NOT scientists. Therefore the bible is NOT scientific.
The most you can say for the bible in a scientific type fashion is that it is a history book, but science? COME ON, give me a break.
Sorry Tribune, thanks for playing.
To: Aric2000
The bible is NOT a science book, it is a religious book, a philosophy book if you will. It is definitely NOT science. Hey, you're arguing with the wrong guy. Tell Doctor Stochastic.
To: Doctor Stochastic
Disclaimers for Group Theory, "Group Theory" is mathematics. It's not a scientific theory. Not applicable.
the Theory of Equations,
What's that? Which equations? Anyway, also mathematics.
Analytic Number Theory, Graph Theory, Multiplicative Number Theory, Chaos Theory, Probability Theory, K-Theory, Complexity Theory, Information Theory, Queueing Theory, M-Theory, Set Theory, Class Field Theory, Represenation Theory, too?
Ditto, ditto, ditto...
These are all mathematical (not scientific) theories, so this list is a total red herring. The word "theory" is not being used in the same way in mathematics as in science. Don't you know that?
What is there to disclaim in these theories?
Well, one could (and should) say that they are subject to whichever mathematical axioms apply....
But they're not scientific theories, and therefore (despite the apparently confusing-to-you fact that they have the word "theory" in their names), not even relevant to this discussion in the first place. Sorry, you seemed to have tried so hard on your post too. Have a nice day.
To: AndrewC
And that is why I homeschool, because of a bunch of crazy zealots that try to shove their religious dogma through as science, and when they can't, want a disclaimer for the offending science.
Public schools have been turned into an indoctrination facility for governments and whomever else can get in there with their agenda. Me, I decided that I would not allow my children to be a part of that. PERIOD.
I will teach them what they should know in order to THINK.
I will teach them science as science, without disclaimers, because if you are sure of the definition of THEORY, there is NO need for one.
I will give them some knowledge, but most of all, I want them to learn how to THINK, not just spout facts.
To: Aric2000
I believe that all that needs to be done is that the TRUE definition of Theory is taught at the beginning of each science class. This would put it all out front and NO one could say that they didn't have a clue what a theory actually was, and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats. but, as was said, they would never agree to such a thing. Speaking only for myself:
I would definitely agree to such a thing. Sounds like a good plan to me.
To: Tribune7
My apologies, sorry about that.
To: Tribune7
The claims of WJB, which, as you pointed out, have been shown to be false.
To: Aric2000
I believe that all that needs to be done is that the TRUE definition of Theory is taught at the beginning of each science class. This would put it all out front and NO one could say that they didn't have a clue what a theory actually was, and we wouldn't have a bunch of zealots trying to shove disclaimers down our throats. but, as was said, they would never agree to such a thing. I don't have a problem with this. I can't think of anyone who would. So, why isn't being done?
To: Dr. Frank
In what way is the word theory being used differently? Certainly many people doing math or physics or chemistry or biology or geology use theory in the same way. I do.
Perhaps you should learn a bit about how the word theory is used. You seem to miss the concept completely.
To: Aric2000
No prob.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400, 401-420, 421-440 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson