So, for instance, you believe that it would be "scientific" to spend valuable time considering whether fairies dance in the garden when you don't know why the grass was trampled? There is, after all, photographic evidence:
and
Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
...so, I assume the same little fairies that fed you that last piece of slanderous nonsense about Urey-Miller fed you this one too. What's the theory this time?: too close to hell? As in happens, the vents produce oxidating gases, and, since sulferated lifeforms have been found down there, one wonders what, exactly, the objection is.
And that's funny, too.
Of course she is, isn't it obvious?
Hi Condorman. Yes. We went a few rounds on that one. It hasn't ended yet. This might be a good opportunity for you to clarify what evidence is necessary for you to conclude that an entity exists as a result of intelligent design. How do you know, when you see a "man-made" object, that it is man-made?
If you're gonna bet beers I hope they're ice cold.
Actually, I think the Hebrews came up with the dreaded "cubit", the length of a man's arm. Talk about an imprecise measurement! ;-) The only thing God wanted was for people to use "fair" scales and measurements in dealing with other.
And if you are an "inerrant" adherent but reject literalism, than be prepared to get warm and toasted from the literalists and the atheists alike on these threads. One of the reasons I post on a Crevo thread about twice a year.
Wow! Jenny, I have'nt seen a post from you in long time! I was wondering if you'd been zotted or if I missed your Opus.
How have you been?
"I sure wouldn't want to be in your place at the last roundup!"
I'm betting with Paschal myself!
That is just preposterous. Scientists "yield" power over the cirriculum of science classes by virtue of the fact that science classes teach children what scientists think. There is no shortage of opportunities to teach what everyone else thinks in other courses that don't explicitly claim to be about what scientists think. As I believe I've pointed out before--scientists do not routinely threaten their rhetorical opponents with death by fire, which differs distinctly from "the Roman Cardinals in Galileo's day".
Courtesy reply. Nice to "see" you.
The logic is impeccable so the confounding must be due to something else.
When you can come up with some sort of argument that doesn't claim that because of someone's disbelief in a god they must be a Marxist, you have contributed no more than I have.
You just made an assertion with no basis in fact. None, nada, zip. I mean, you like many others here, just seem to make up assertions as you need them. Not one poster with a different view of Dawkins than I have has commented at all on the substance that I posted including Marx's exhortations to ban religion and Dawkins views that religion is the enemy of rationality. When something is your enemy, it is extremely probable that if you were King you would ban it. It is my opinion, substantiated on this thread by the writings of Marx and Dawkins that both would have banned religion if they could.
In return, I have gotten the usual ad hominems, false assertions, foul language and accusations of bigotry against the Godless. All garbage. Such is life.
All I see in your argument is a non-sequitur.
Then you have willfully misread my posts and the references I provided. There is no other way around it. Your statement above is just another false assertion in a long list of them.
But you're a civil guy, I'll give you that.
LOL, no, just hunkering down a bit at work. When I'm not wasting time keeping up my message board.
In public schools this applies only to the degree that "what scientists think" is confined, restrained, limited, to their biases. IOW, it applies unless certain scientists suggest Darwinian theory has some explaining to do.
Galileo was redressed because he suggested science has a role in determining how the Scriputures should be interpreted. Today science is being redressed because it suggests biblical propositions have little or no basis in reality. A well-rounded educational system will allow the teaching and exposition of more than one point of view. That point seems to be lost on dogmatic evolutionists.
BTW, my reading of history has not revealed that Galileo was threatened with "death by fire."
BTW, my reading of history has not revealed that Galileo was threatened with "death by fire."
Well than you'd be mistaken. Geordono Bruno was conflagrated for thought crimes of science much in the same vein as Galileo's. At any rate--I didn't say he was.
Science is futile. if you're never going to have The Answer what's the point?
OTOH If you bave The Answer, what's the point?
The Gripping Hand. Closure is overrated.
Whatever. My argument concerns the manner of policing and silencing free thought and expression, not its degree. My assertion stands that dogmatic evolutionists cannot stomach the suggestion that Darwinian evolution has some explaining to do. So much so they would rather file lawsuits than see the subject of ID brought up in an academic context. This does not speak well for their supposed interest in executing the conquest of ignorance.
So, for instance, you believe that it would be "scientific" to spend valuable time considering whether fairies dance in the garden when you don't know why the grass was trampled? There is, after all, photographic evidence:
and
Aristotle also thought plants were not alive because they had no souls.
A giant in philosophy, but pretty awful in biology.
There is the extreme point of that there is a finite number of things and so eventually all will be known.
Will that be the death of ignorance?
He, he, he.
No. By the time we get to the other end of the galaxy, and find out what's going on there, we'll be totally out of touch with what's happening at our point of origin, so we'll have to go back and start all over again.
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.