Posted on 11/06/2005 6:26:17 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage...
Gravitation: a theory in crisis! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
< /Luddite mode>
I'm going to take your time machine away! It's not for picking up girls.
Ha! Your so-called Time Theory doesn't have any explanation whatever for picking up girls!
According to evolution, everything is about picking up girls.
The changes also alter the definition of science to allow for non-natural explanations.
In other words, the changes allow for "explanations" for which there is no evidence, can be no evidence and THEREFORE can only be taken on faith.
But ID doesn't have anything to do with Creationism, now does it?
But then again, it doesn't have anything to do with science either.
This is funny. If Goddidit, wouldn't that be completely natural?
I am about a third of the way through. Nice quote:
Many of the witnesses for the defendants did not tell the truth. They did not tell the truth at their depositions, and they have not told the truth in this courtroom. They are not telling the truth when they assert that only Intelligent Design, and not creationism were discussed at the June 2004 board meetings. They are not telling the truth when they place the "2000 years ago" statement at the meeting discussing the pledge rather than the June 14, 2004 meeting discussing the biology textbook. The did not tell the truth in their depositions, or for that matter to the citizens of Dover, about how the donation of the Pandas books came about. (p. 5)
Thanks, that was worthwhile ping - good overall summary of the plaintiff's points.
The quote of I'm currently reflecting upon: "He [Behe] acknowledges that the more one believes in God, the more persuasive Intelligent Design is."
I hardly think so. The God that ID proposes is one that made a world created with the appearance of naturalistic evolution, except for a few places here and there where apparently God wasn't smart enough to cover His tracks. Personally, I think this is a pretty demeaning view of God as well as being a deplorable way of doing science.
Is scientific materialism merely dialectical materialism.. cross dressed in/as another gender.?..
True, the ID'ers are Agnostic Creationists, maybe.. but is Scientific Materialism Atheist Evolutionism couched in great swelling words.. as it seems so to me..
< /honest reply >
How do you make a lying troll go away?
Yes, and therefore utterly undetectable as being from a "non-natural" source as its explanation.
A crushing condemnation of the fraudulence and arrogance of the Dover Board, as well as the intellectual vacuuity of ID.
Utterly Devastating.
Many quotes I wish I could lift from it to share.... but it's a pdf...
I seem to remember a few threads ago, you had great disdain for sex.
What's changed your mind, hhhmmmmmm?
Has the comely edweena turned your head from the straight and narrow?
Perhaps you should just give me your keys, young man :-)
As William Dembski stated in “What Every Theologian Should Know About Creationism, Evolution and Design,” unless the ground rules of science are changed to allow the supernatural, Intelligent Design has “no chance Hades.(sic) In this courtroom, Steve Fuller confirmed that changing the ground rules of science is Intelligent Design’s fundamental project.
Change the rules of science to include that which, by definition, there cannot be any evidence for. In other words, destroy science in favor of religion.
Welcome to the Dark Ages II.
mPaLrAkCeEr
As long as the Grand Master smiles upon me, my position is secure.
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.