Posted on 08/15/2005 9:18:06 AM PDT by hc87
Exactly eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee, history is about to repeat itself. In a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in late September, scientists and creationists will square off about whether and how high school students in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn about biological evolution. One would have assumed that these battles were over, but that is to underestimate the fury (and the ingenuity) of creationists scorned.
The Scopes trial of our day--Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District et al--began innocuously...
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
Put simply, in my eyes, ID theory and advanced physics (those branches of theorectical physics that push into the realm of metaphysics) are worthwhile pursuits.
And how does one 'pursue' ID theory? What experiments should be performed?
When the archeologists of the far future dig up the Palm Readers house in Las Vegas they can say the same thing.
And just think of what they will find at Sigfreid and Roy's place!
You know that I don't believe that the Bible is a science textbook...It is much better than a science textbook...Unlike science textbooks, It has not been repeatedly revised due to falsified and fraudulent evidence and theory.
But stick with the context.
When Bible verses were cited in the midst of "scientific" disussions, you lost/lose interest (according to your post).
I merely pointed out the historical fact that you lose interest when the Bible is cited, period...regardless of the topic of discussion.
And you are wrong again about the Bible...It says that God spoke created things into existence. Is that not detailed enough for you?
IDers are about as much as asset to the conservative movement as flat earthers and baseball card economists.
They have one redeeming quality. They vote Republican.
However, if they start driving rational Republican voters to not vote, that is a problem. I hope it doesn't become one.
A book on the evolution of the tiger and your picture, perhaps?
History, archeology, Scripture, fulfilled prophecy, documented historical eye-witness account and etc....all side with the claims of Christianity.
I think Osama disagrees with you. Or maybe he agrees with you. I can't make up my mind about it.
What if there is no why, other than a natural cause?
And just what part of Ireland belongs to Canada? Oops! Sorry, wrong direction. Which part of Canada is owned by Ireland?
If I'm 1/4 Scottish-Canadian, am I supposed to hate or like Irish Canucks?
A calculation that is rife with inaccuracies and inappropriate initial assumptions.
The fact that you can't make your mind up about it is not surprising...It is kind of like trying to get agreement among evolutionary scientists on the "evidence" for evolution.
Like the evolutionary debate about one of evolution's "best transitional fossils", Archeoptyrex.
Some of the more open-minded evolutionists, like the late Dr. Colin Patterson, state that there is "no watertight argument" for any of the known "transitional fossils".
You are correct. The Bible is a book of faith. Science is a search for method and facts. That science is not static is one of it's greatest assets.
revised due to falsified and fraudulent evidence and theory.
If you're under the impression that falsified and fraudulent evidence is common, then you are mistaken. Such critisism coming from a Christian faith that harbors such frauds as Jim Jones, Jim Bakker, and many others is laughable.
And you are wrong again about the Bible...It says that God spoke created things into existence. Is that not detailed enough for you?
Absolutely not. That can mean anything from an instantaneous energy to matter conversion to 12 billion years of painstaking history.
It takes real faith to think that one sentence "God spoke created things into existence" is any kind of detail when you're considering the entire universe.
Would you be offended if I asked you for some aspect of this claim that could be tested? How would the universe be different if it sprang from the forehead of Zeus? Can you propose some line of research that would distinguish between these two hypotheses?
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Call us when the rest of the 5.7 billion religionists agree with you. You know, those Hindus and Buddhists and Taoists and Shintoists and Druids and Native American religionists and all those strange pantheists and pagans who have just as good reasons for their irrational cultural beliefs as you do for yours.
Just typing that requires another BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Well, there is just so much to choose from....
Like the evolutionary debate about one of evolution's "best transitional fossils", Archeoptyrex.
Scientists find new information and debate among themselves how it fits into existing information. You think this is a bad thing?
The alternative would have us all living in mud huts in fear of any new idea, like Europeans did during the first 1000 years of Christianity.
Some of the more open-minded evolutionists, like the late Dr. Colin Patterson, state that there is "no watertight argument" for any of the known "transitional fossils".
The technique of finding a Bible verse to support your pre-existing conclusion doesn't work in the scientific realm. This is that same technique by quoting someone, almost certianly out of context. It proves nothing, only re-enforcing your prejudices.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
I was unaware that it was open for debate among conservatism that Creator God existed.
All this time, the founding fathers' premise/belief that our inalienable rights were endowed by our Creator were mythological in origin?
It could have been, or might have been, Zeus who gave us these rights?
Why doesn't our money state "IN ZEUS WE TRUST"?
Or would that offend your sensibilities and intellectual stature as well?
Is there anything else that you have in common with the ACLU and Mr. Nedow?
The fact that you can't make your mind up about it is not surprising...
I think you missed my point. Let me be more explicit.
Osama would agree with this statement..."History, archeology, Scripture, fulfilled prophecy, documented historical eye-witness account and etc....all side with the claims of Islam".
But he would disagree with this statement..."History, archeology, Scripture, fulfilled prophecy, documented historical eye-witness account and etc....all side with the claims of Christianity".
Which statement is correct? And why? And which should everyone agree with? What experiments can we perform that might produce results that might support or disprove either statement?
Are you suggesting that reality is shaped by political resolutions?
You, on the other hand, are prejudiced by your lack of faith in God and Scripture...and won't admit 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.