Posted on 10/20/2005 6:17:41 PM PDT by furball4paws
http://www.waronscience.com/excerpt.php?p=1
Chapter 1: The Threat IN THE SUMMER OF 2001, long before his reelection and even before he became a "wartime president," George W. Bush found himself in a political tight spot. He responded with a morsel of scientific misinformation so stunning, so certain to be exposed by enterprising journalists (as indeed it was), that one can only wonder what Bush and his handlers were thinking, or whether they were thinking at all. The issue was embryonic stem cell research, and Bush's nationally televised claim—that "more than sixty genetically diverse" embryonic stem cell lines existed at the time of his statement—counts as one of the most flagrant purely scientific deceptions ever perpetrated by a U.S. president on an unsuspecting public. Bush's assertion, made on August 9, 2001, came as the president sought to escape a political trap of his own making. Campaigning in 2000, Bush told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that taxpayer money "should not underwrite research that involves the destruction of live human embryos." The statement threw a bone to Bush's pro-life followers, who view the ball of about one hundred fifty cells constituting a five-day-old embryo as deserving of the same moral and legal protections as fully developed human beings. Accordingly, these religious conservatives consider embryonic stem cell research—the study of excess embryos donated for research from in vitro fertilization clinics—ethically abhorrent. But some prominent Republicans, such as Utah senator Orrin Hatch, favored the research because of its scientific promise. As the issue came to a head in the summer of 2001, Bush publicly agonized over what to do. Finally, he opted for a supposed compromise: he would allow federal funding, but only for research on preexisting cell lines.
(Excerpt) Read more at waronscience.com ...
That's Virgin-singular. Until you can show God can't do these things, your claims amount to nothing.
Please explain, then, how it is that I can believe in God and yet also believe that evolution is the best explanation we have for the diversity of life. I am anxiously awaiting your explanation, since I have just been labelled as an atheist by you for the 4,563rd time on these threads.
Creationism does not necessarily imply creation by the God of Abraham who inspired the Holy Bible. Creationism is the belief that some being created the universe. It doesn't necessarily have to be God.
Oh, you're logic is so tight, for a third-grader. First you assume there is something or someone called god, then you ask ME to prove this god can't do *those things* that you claim he did.
You probably believe men can rise from the dead too.
You probably believe this deity of yours created the the heaven and the earth and man and animals in 6 days.
You probably also believe Noah built a boat and everyone in the world was flooded except for he and his family.
You probably also believe that a virgin was somehow expecting a baby and then had a baby without any man involved.
And you ask me for proof of something.
No idiot, that's an assumption you make, because your claim is that God can't do the things you claim.
Big mouth, you are the one who is making the claim that there is a god. If you are a christian, you then procede to make claims about what this god has done. Not what he could do, but what he has done.
Not 'could do'....you are claiming things he 'DID do'.
If you chose, you could only claim there is a god, a god who could do anything (notice: could do), but what you are claiming is that your god DID do these things.
My point is that science has proven that virgins do not have babies, men do not rise from the grave, men do not walk on water, and god did not create the heaven, the earth, man and animals in 6 days.
If you want to ignore science then don't just go half way, when it is convenient, jump in all the way.
You make all kinds of claims: according to your book, we have a virgin birth, we have a man walking on water, a man controlling the weather by speaking to it, and instantly healing cripples (cripple since birth).
We also have water turning to wine, men rising from the dead and we have god creating man and all the animals in 6 days.
A man? I thought it was God doing that. You must have some evidence that God can't do these things. Your whining about it here and calling people hypocrites w/o presenting your evidence. So produce it! Where is your evidence?
"My point is that science has proven that virgins do not have babies, men do not rise from the grave, men do not walk on water, and god did not create the heaven, the earth, man and animals in 6 days. If you want to ignore science then don't just go half way, when it is convenient, jump in all the way."
Where do you see me doing things, because they are conveinient? Where do you see anyone doing that? You have no rational point to make. You're simply whining.
My point is quite rational and that is why you can't respond rationally.
The claims are all yours. You claim the unscientific, but you can't produce the evidence that rationality requires. No rational point, indeed.
You could take these claims of yours and back them up, but you can't, all you can do is blabber.
You have no evidence to back up your claims and yes, if you are a christian, you believe all these things unless you pick and choose the ones you want for political purposes.
There is more empirical scientific evidence that men stay dead when they finally die than there is that life evolved from a common ancestor. But christians still believe men can die and wait a few days and rise from the dead.
Let's see the proof for your unscientific claims. You don't have any.
You keep saying 'can't, when your claim is that god 'did' do these things.
Of course your changing of the words 'did do' into 'can't do' is very revealing. But your claims are still that your god 'did' do these things, even if you insist upon changing your claim to 'could do' or 'can do' or any other variation. You claim is still that god 'did' do these things and you have no proof.
Whatever.
"and you have no proof."
Nor do you. Your posts are still vacuous whining.
"Of course your changing of the words 'did do' into 'can't do' is very revealing."
I see, so you're a mystic. Cool.
"But your claims are still that your god 'did' do these things, even if you insist upon changing your claim to 'could do' or 'can do' or any other variation. You claim is still that god 'did' do these things and you have no proof."
Bizarre.
Hardly, but nice dodge. The fact that you continue to avoid my challenge is also revealing. These two together reveal that you can't deal with the rationality of my challenge, but you might give it a try if you get to ignore your own claims that are unscientific and nonsense.
After failing to attempt any proof for your claims, you can only offer a weak excuse, that rationality to you is 'bizarre'.
I guess rationality to you would seem bizarre. But the real problem is your lack of proof to go along with your lack of guts.
What challenge?
"failing to attempt any proof for your claims"
You don't know what my claims might be. However, I'll pick one out of yours that I believe. It's the virgin birth of God. I believe it, but only because I believe the person presented in the 4 Gospels is a singular, unique person that is God. I take none of the claims for miracles as evidence for that, or anything whatsoever. In fact those miracles were given by God only to those present then. I explained that earlier on the thread.
Now as far as the virgin birth goes, I need no more evidence than to know why it was said and it's purpose. From that I know what it means, it's importance and whether I should take it literally. I don't care, nor do I need to care about the mechanics involved, or whether it's scientific. God created the world in such a way as He says in Matt 11:25-26,
At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. So I don't need evidence that suits you to believe in the virgin birth, only the Holy Spirit, the sign of Jonah that tells me it is so.
"the real problem is your lack of proof to go along with your lack of guts."
If you insist on making claims, it's up to you to provide your own evidence. The burden of proof is on you, since it's your claim. Now, put up your scientific proof that God can't do the things you claim he can't.
I am not out to prove that he can't, because you could always say 'it just hasn't happened yet. Your real claim is that he DID do these miracles, you believe them, but have no proof for the things you believe he did.
You believe that god created the heaven and earth in 6 days, and you believe Jesus rose from the dead. Both are very unscientific notions.
You have seen my partial list of miracles and works that God, and Jesus and his disciples are said to have done. Which ones do you deny and why? Which ones do you support and why?
Did I bore you to death with that last one?
No I just ran out of electrons. I'll get back soon. If I don't poke me again.
There are 2 things right now:
1. I think the human mind is "infinite" in this way: I think the human mind is capable of understanding anything that exists (not exactly infinite, but close enough). No individual mind is, however, due to the biology of the species and the fact that we have a limited amount of time to stuff stuff into it.
2. There is no faith in my timeline. It is conjecture and I state it as such. It is, however, based on trend line analysis and 40 years of experience. I have purposely left it a little bit "loose" to accomodate new and rapidly changing things. This comes to the crux of Creo/Evo debates. Creos are stuck. There can be nothing new, it has all been done. Evos are always lighting up new things. Everything is in flux when it comes to our knowledge.
Perhaps it's just that scientists deal with uncertainty better than others.
See my post above. Wonder if this is a Soros documentary enterprise?
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.