Skip to comments.
Bible-quoting science students on rise (USA spreads 'infectious diesease to UK)
Sidney Morning Herald ^
| 22 Feb 2006
| Duncan Campbell
Posted on 02/21/2006 6:57:32 PM PST by gobucks
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 241 next last
To: trashcanbred
Since when did the THEORY of Evolution become a branch of science? A branch of science is more like; biology, chemistry, physics, geology. That would be like calling global warming or gravitation a *branch* of science.
121
posted on
02/22/2006 8:48:14 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: trashcanbred
Are there any other branches of science you think are false besides evolution?Perhaps you and many others consider evolution to be a "branch of science." But it is an overarching, subjective philosophy that has little bearing on the way things work. It is hardly "irrational," as some might think, to attribute the presence of organized matter to intelligent design, or even a Creator that may remain in the background while science does its work. What "branch of science" throws out an arbitrary, post facto explanation of history via the two words "natural selection?" Who in their right mind would consider the notion of "natural selection" worthy of empirical science when it cannot predict the next million years of life while claiming to have the first 4.5 billion under its belt?
To: redgolum
I heard someone say the other day that the end of the Enlightenment was coming because of Evangelicals and conservative Catholics.And to what do they attribute the BEGINNING of the Enlightenment to? Everything I've ever been taught says the Protestant Reformation. Of course, that's before the newly revised PC history books.
123
posted on
02/22/2006 8:53:18 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: gobucks
Hooah to those students who are willing to stand up to the Indoctrination Juggernaut!
124
posted on
02/22/2006 8:56:55 PM PST
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
To: Sloth
125
posted on
02/22/2006 8:57:00 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: trashcanbred
In the US, there is growing pressure to teach creationism or "intelligent design" in science classes, despite legal rulings against it. Similar trends in Britain have prompted the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, to confront the issue head-on with a talk next month entitled "Why Creationism is wrong", when the award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally.It's not on *Why ID is wrong*.
126
posted on
02/22/2006 9:05:32 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: moatilliatta
The scientific community keeps telling us that creation/ID isn't science and now you're telling us that it is?
If creation is the supernatural and outside the perview of science, as we are told so often on these threads, than scientists are overstepping the bounds of what they are qualified to speak on. They constantly tell us that science only deals with the natural but not with the supernatural and then they presume to make blanket statements on subject areas in which they admit ignorance.
Of course creation can withstand open debate, but open debate means not blowing off all your opponents agruments off as lies and myths before the debate even begins. Everything creationists say is summarily dismissed off hand as *not science* so there can be no debate.
127
posted on
02/22/2006 9:15:22 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: trashcanbred; bvw
Yes, ignoramuses like Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein. All kinds of "people like you" who have believed in God and creation.
128
posted on
02/22/2006 9:30:49 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: doc30
"THat is not the definition of the word 'theory' when used in a scientific context."
OK Smarty-pants, what IS the definition of "theory" in a scientific context? And please be sure to include that part that says theory=fact. You know, that little troublesome tidbit you're defending but neglected to include.
"This is another example of the creationist habit of misleading and/or lying their way through arguments."
And speaking of a scientific discussion, where and why did you jump to the conclusion that I am a creationist?
"If you want to be taken seriously in a scientific discussion, at least learn what the words mean."
Oooh, please take me seriously. Oh please oh please oh please!!!
To: gobucks
"and at one college in London, most biology students are now thought to be creationists." Just love when that happens! Young lads with reasoning skills.
130
posted on
02/22/2006 10:08:42 PM PST
by
patriot_wes
(papal infallibility - a proud tradition since 1869)
To: LiteKeeper
// Hooah to those students who are willing to stand up to the Indoctrination Juggernaut!//
Double Hooah to that!
Young People weren't sold on it then, and they are not now. Those are my kind of kids.
Wolf
131
posted on
02/22/2006 10:17:28 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: metmom
metmom captures the essence again!
![the greatest](http://www.stairstars.com/updatepics/RingmedMeadows.jpg)
"Baby, you're the greatest"
Ralph Kramden
Wolf
132
posted on
02/22/2006 10:47:33 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: driveserve
OK Smarty-pants, what IS the definition of "theory" in a scientific context? And please be sure to include that part that says theory=fact. You know, that little troublesome tidbit you're defending but neglected to include. What difference does it make. Evolution is both a fact and a theory...and the fact infers the theory.
...hope you have plenty of tylenol
133
posted on
02/22/2006 11:18:12 PM PST
by
csense
To: Lunatic Fringe; doc30; nmh
Ahh, the definition as presented by the Flat Earth Society:
"Theories NEVER become scientific law. But they can be disproven or modified."
Blindingly obvious question Spock, if a theory=fact and can be disproved or modified, how then is it a "fact" and therefore undeniable truth? And if theories NEVER become law, how can they be undeniable truth?
"Scientific Theory: Explains how it happens."
1) How is it that some scientific theories go off to the dust bin of history?
2) How can there be competing theories regarding the same phenomena?
3) How can they, by your argument, both be undeniably true?
Somebody's denying the undeniable and it ain't just us silly backwater rubes. Scientists are arguing with each other, denying the undeniable about lots of things. You're arguing that undeniable truth lies behind every guess, educated or not, that some schmuck in a white lab coat calls "Scientific Theory".
(Not that you have a white lab coat or anything...)
To: driveserve
driveserve
You have just encapsulated in one paragraph a big piece of what I have tried to say for a few months.
Bravo to you driveserve
Wolf
135
posted on
02/22/2006 11:45:58 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: trashcanbred
"If you say that ID is based on faith however, then don't push it in schools as a valid scientific theory."
I agree with you that folks pushing ID should not get offended when challenged. That's the game and they need to play it. I also agree that ID should not be dressed up as scientific theory.
And neither should evolution.
It is as non-scientific as creationism. That both require a leap-of-faith (not to mention a leap in logic) proves that neither rise to the level of science. Creationism and creationist need to clearly state that it is a faith in God that drives the theories. Evolution and evolutionists need to clearly state that it is the faith that God does not exist, that drives theirs.
To: driveserve
It is as non-scientific as creationism. That both require a leap-of-faith (not to mention a leap in logic) proves that neither rise to the level of science. Creationism and creationist need to clearly state that it is a faith in God that drives the theories. Evolution and evolutionists need to clearly state that it is the faith that God does not exist, that drives theirs
See that is just it, except I disagree with your use of the term 'rise to science'
That is where my sharing departs from yours. See 'science' is not necessarily reality or truth either. Agree? I predict not.
Wolf
137
posted on
02/22/2006 11:59:44 PM PST
by
RunningWolf
(Vet US Army Air Cav 1975)
To: freedumb2003; nmh
"I have all your previous posts on file. If I see you repeat the falsehoods that were debunked on previous threads, I will expose you for what you are."
1) If you see repeated false opinions?
2) You will debunk what exactly? His opinions?
3) Expose him for what? Someone with opinions?
File? File this you putz. Go and alert the authorities that somebody with opinions is posting on FR. While you're at it, make sure that all those stating opinions on this forum are subject to getting their opinions filed for future debunking and exposure for the opinions that they are. We cannot endure opinions on this forum that are debunkable lest this forum should come to an end because of such as those who would post opinions of a debunkable nature and therefore debunkable.
And go F(ile) yourself...
To: csense
"What difference does it make[?]"
So humor me if it makes no difference. I think that the definition of "theory" does not change in a "scientific" context. I think "theory" is not "fact" in any context. So please educate me. I'm more than willing to change my position when my argument cannot hold water. Speaking of water, I can't take my Tylenol without some.
Ps: How can something be both theory AND fact at the same time? Once proved, theory becomes fact, no?
To: freedumb2003; nmh
"You seem a little paranoid. I wonder why?"
You're projecting my little book-maker.
Shh, someone's posting an opinion...
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 241 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson