Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
The defining line between the two, IMHO, is indistinct.
Atheistic science is dogmatic science, insofar as it asserts the absence of God as necessary to its proper practice. It is neither wholly without merit, nor solely acceptable, as a means of knowing and teaching about the physical world.
Actually, it is true. Your asserting to the contrary without any supporting facts notwithstanding. It's very impresive that you've managed to come to a sweeping conclusion about my knowledge of 4 whole realms of human inquiry based on such a small data set, but as an evolutionist, I realize this is what constitutes "marshalling facts" and rigorous scientific reasoning.
Once again, outside of evolutionary science, asserting something to be true does not make it so.
You have an odd idea of what a Christian believes my little antagonistic friend. I don't have my own personal deity.
Of the nine folks who will be at my Christmas dinner, only two are atheists. The rest are Lutherans. Majority rules at dinner, especially on Christmas day.
Umm, Lutherans are Christians, it's not a different religion or anything. And what are you atheists celebrating? Non God day?
I've never spoken of my beliefs to my nephew, and will not unless asked, and then only after he is an adult. His mother and father are, and should be, his source of such information.
Thank God.
If anyone asks, I can add grace in French, Russian, and Spanish, using a traditional blessing from each culture. I've done it before.
So it's you who talks to yourself, not your nephew. LOL
Imagine, a grown man talking to himself in front of others and asking the thin air to "bless" his meal. C'mon dude, don't be a sissy, just dig in, get it before your fellows get it. After your dead it won't matter and you will get the most! LOL
You have a strange idea of what an atheist is, my antagonistic Freeper. I don't care what others believe.
You certainly do. You may pretend to yourself that you don't, but it is the ONE thing you hold most dear and long to tell everyone else who doesn't already know.
"Hi,,,I'm Mineral man, and I'm an atheist with no God."
You can kid yourself, but your tag-line gives away your priorities. You DO care what others think, and your tag-line is an open invitation to discuss it, the most important thing in your life is a non belief. It's sad.
That sounds very similar to what Marx's and Freud's disciples might have said.
Interestingly, they were equally arrogant and dismissive of dissenters, and equally approving of using the power of the state to promote correct thinking, especially Marx.
Again, I realize it's different with Darwin...
No, it is not. We start with some simple assumptions which are very testable:
1) When a rock is liquid, all the argon in it escapes.
2) When a rock is solid, argon that forms inside the rock is trapped.
3) The decay rate of K to Ar is constant over time. Not only is this consistent with observations here on earth and from starlight spectrum, but also if it were not, there would be noticeable consequences. If the decay rate were so fast that rocks that were actually 6000 years old looked 3B years old, the rocks would be so hot they would melt and release all their Ar again, resetting their clocks.
Starting with these testable assumptions, which hold true every time we test them, we can come up with a method that compares the K and Ar contents of rocks to determine how old they are. You don't have to assume a rock is a certain age to test for it to be a certain age.
When the elephants take on the characteristics of hippos, they have become hippos. Yo're trying to refute speciation by changing the definition of species.
I learned my science in monday through friday school.
I learned my religion in sunday school.
I have never had any problem correlating the two types of learnings.
When the college students that I now teach ask, I tell them to consider the possiblity that God created evolution but that ultimately what they accept as truth is up to them.
We call that "critical thinking skills."
In my training, it has nothing whatsoever to do with physical appearance.
Have you found anything in the testimony to substantiate claims or suspicions that ID is the instrument of a particular brand of Christiany trying to assert itself as solely capable of doing, and teaching, good science?
Simplicity itself. Find a million-year-old Homo Sapiens fossil, and the ToE has been falsified.
I don't consider religion a bad thing (religion can be false or true). truth is independant of whether it is labelled religion or science (or evolution) so if religion is truthful(or false) so be it, same goes towards science.
"To assert the absence of God requires the same burden of proof."
And science does not actually do that; it merely ignores the issue entirely, as no one has managed to come up with a falsifiable test for the presence of God.
So, the burden of proof is on you. Please provide your falsifiable test.
He's not on this thread. Here, it is just a strawman for a Christmas present.
Interesting that you say the theory can be falsifiable instead of verifiable. That's an interesting choice of words. Where is your test data for the ID theory of the origin of life? Link?
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.