Which one's Jesus?
Posted on 05/25/2005 3:41:22 AM PDT by billorites
What's so great about #900?
Neither is your inability to learn.
Got those demonstrations for intelligence or design yet? (See post 869). You can't simply assume them and expect to be taken seriously.
You do not realize how willing I am to admit to ignorance, or how capable I am of demonstrating it. There's no reason I cannot engage in ignorance while pointing it out at the same time. It is ignorant to accept or present wild assertions as scientific fact when evidence has not been presented to back the claims. Evolutionists assert that information can arise and be communicated without an intelligent agent, but they have not demonstrated how this might happen other than by suggesting a process or two that, ipso facto, must be the cause. They defend this position with courts and judges. That's not only ignorant, but abusively so.
Sour grapes? Anyway, the true prize is 1,000. With some more trolling, and some unfortunately misguided responses, we may make it.
You're assuming lack of intelligent design while clearly demonstrating it.
PH owns it. Now we wait to see what sort of drivel he comes up with to get to 1000.
Right. Like the zot thread is going to be impressed.
I am not arguing that point. I'm not even interested in arguing that point. Why do you bring it up?
Shalom.
First Suggestion: keep Uncle Fester going. (Maybe Fester is the real Patrick Henry - jennyp said she was PH a while back, but you never know).
You're making the assertion that intelligent design exists. It's up to you to offer some evidence in support of your assertion. Until that time, you continue to beg the question.
No. I don't intend to. I know it to be true. I don't care if you are convinced or not. The big issue is that if you insist Science must deny the supernatural you must support the assertion that it does not exist. Proving a negative is impossible, so you are left in an untenable situation. The most you can say or do is assert that you don't intend to include the supernatural in your own worldview. That is your right. Insisting that there can be no place for the supernatural in scientific inquiry is not your right.
Shalom.
I have a terrier. The next one I get is going to called "Gummy" or some variation thereof.
Test it, but not observe it. If you had seen Jesus walk on water you would have observed the supernatural, but you would not have been able to test it.
That said, I agree that science is limited in its value precisely because it can not be applied to the supernatural, among other things. But to tell a scientist that he may not consider the supernatural is to limit him unfairly.
Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say something like, "When you have eliminated all the alternatives, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is not only probable, but the solution." (Apologies to Doyle.) I would be very disappointed in a scientist who moved to the supernatural before exhausting all possible alternatives and without a healthy dose of skepticism. I would be very disappointed in a scientist who, when faced with the supernatural being the only explaination (Jesus walking on water, for example) he would refuse that answer.
Shalom.
... poor dog ...
You gotta teach it to wear a hat, btw.
The overhwelming evidence for it has been observed, yes, and has passed all verification tests and falsification tests.
Or was it imagined?
No, that's how the creationists arrive at their conclusions (for dozens of examples, just read this thread), not evolutionary biologists. That is, when the creationists aren't simply lying.
People have difficulty with "it evolved" because it goes against Scriptural teachings
One would think that "people" would have learned not to make this kind of error.
As the famous explorer Ferdinand Magellan said, in reference to a clash between the trustworthiness of direct evidence over dogma:
"The church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round, for I have seen the shadow on the moon, and I have more faith in a shadow than in the church." (Ferdinand Magellan, from George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 461.)And:
"To command the professors of astronomy to confute their own observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them not to see what they do see, and not to understand what they do understand, and to find what they do not discover."Hint: Galileo was right -- because he followed the evidence where it lead. The Church, the Cardinals, and the Pope himself were wrong -- because they clung to their arrogant notions that they were unable to misunderstand Scripture.
-Galileo"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."
-Galileo"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
-Galileo"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment."
-Galileo"Nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages."
-Galileo
Learn from their mistake.
and any "proof" is in the imaginations of it's believers.
I see -- so vast amounts of evidence supporting evolution, including just the tiny taste of it presented in post #661, is all just "imagination"? It's just made up? Someone fantasized all of it? Is that really the paranoid, slanderous, pig-ignorant position you want to put your name on?
I regret to inform you that your creationist sources have lied to you, and lied badly. And you have made the mistake of swallowing their lies whole.
For anything to "evolve", it must have a design/purpose/instruction.
It has to have a survival advantage. A "use" if you will. That is hardly synonymous with "design/purpose/instruction", although I know how much trouble creationists have gasping such simple distinctions.
Or on them -- consider his screen name.
You are really really good at this. Something I can agree with you completely.
Which one's Jesus?
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.