Posted on 02/21/2006 6:57:32 PM PST by gobucks
Creatonists can't have their cake and eat it. They can't insist that creatonism is taught in science class and then later claim it's theology rather than science when scientists attempt to debunk it. Is it theology or is it science?
Well that sounds "poetic" but it neither has a logical basis nor does it represent what I was saying in my post, does it? I was responding to someone who was upset because scientists were holding a conference on why ID was wrong. My point was if you tout that ID is a scientific theory, then don't be offended if scientists attempt to disprove it. This is the "life cycle" that ideas in science go through, right? If you say that ID is based on faith however, then don't push it in schools as a valid scientific theory. You can't have it both ways. You cannot say it is a valid theory without allowing skeptics to poke holes in it.
If that offends your faith like it did the person I was responding to, well then it is you who doesn't understand what science is.
Gee, I didn't realize that believing what God states, clearly in the Bible about what He created and how He created it is a "infectious disease".
"USA spreads 'infectious diesease to UK)
Rom.1:20
[20] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
"I've got no problem with an all-powerful God producing everything in six days."
Me neither. This must totally outrage the followers of Satan to have someone dare state they don't believe in someone other than the Judeo Christian God.
"Evolution does not kill God."
But of course not!
LOL!
What evolution does do is call God a liar since His account and ORDER of Creation has nothing in common with evolution.
Scientists have not refuted ID. Nor even YEC, for that matter. Some
poseurs have. And they are potent and numerous in the most august and
powerful of science-related bodies.
It's just like the situation where, post-FDR, Constitution-phopic
Judges have come to dominate our Federal Courts, even after swearing
an oath to uphold the Constitution!
And most of them so swear in good faith. How can they do it? Because
the very words and terms of the Constitution have been
deconstructionized, redefined, usurped. The same with "science".
Words and terms like theory, proof, fact, species, and even "science"
itself -- all aggressively bent and twisted to fit the cloak of the
High Priests of Atheism and Secularism.
I do understand, I have followed the arc of History and attempted to
traces symptoms to root virus. And I think I have -- like many others,
too. Perhaps even a overwhelming majority have, at least of those who
have considered the situation. Majority or minority -- truth is truth.
"Anybody who states that theory = fact = undeniable truth without blushing isn't going to give you reasoned discourse."
And that my friend is a FACT.
Many of the colleges in London are known to harbour pockets of Islamic radicalism. I doubt it is the Evangelicals who are driving this, but they sure seem pretty comfortable with their new bedfellows.
It's the "scientists" who are the hypocrites here. This story is about the hypocrisy of the Royal Society. It is the scientific community that is attempting to have their cake and eat it too.
The scientific community are attempting to do what they have always done, debate scientifc theories. Are we allowed to debate Creationism, or is it supposed to be given a free pass into the canon of science without any debate? Can't it withstand open debate?
Yeah... ya never know if they are quoting something applicable or not!
lol
Scientific Law: Explains what happens.
Scientific Theory: Explains how it happens.
That is the difference. Theories NEVER become scientific law. But they can be disproven or modified. Theories explain the hows and whys of scientific law.
Scientific "Laws" usually take the form of a simple formula.
Recall from the Book of Quantum Mechanics, chapter 3, verse 11:
"And a wailing went up to the Lord, crying for aid in understanding the Copenhagen Interpretation. And the Prophet Einstein answered saying, 'God does not play dice with the universe.'"
I can quote my Bible, too.. but usually I just keep it under the wobbly leg of my kitchen table.
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.
There is nothing to refute. Science hasn't refuted poetry either.
ID is mythology, just like Creationism. They should be taught in theology/religion/mythology etc.
But I do have to agree with those on the thread who are upset that it appears they are trying to completely stamp out discussions of Creationism in any context, and that is religious bigotry.
>>Were YOU there?
Can you repeat "evolution"?
Can you test it?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... by definition of a scientific "FACT" evolution is at most a hypothesis. I wouldn't even label it a theory since it makes no sense."
That "argument" has been stomped into dust so many times that the dust has been stomped into dust. You run it every thread and we always smack you around because it doesn't hold water. I don't know why you bother.
For a quick answer to your question, read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/nov05.html
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.