Posted on 12/19/2006 2:19:29 PM PST by Sopater
Again, it depends on which one is being used at the time.
"I'm not misrepresenting you, just trying to understand why you condone religious dogma being taught in science classes?"
Again, you are misrepresenting me. I have never condoned teaching religious dogma in science class. I merely point out that science is not equipped to answer the supernatural vs natural creation question. It is limited to naturalistic methodologies by definition.
Well, we do have upstanding men like "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind and his creationist teachings....oh, wait, he is in prison, oops.
I've asked you twice now to explain naturalism and explain how and what version is used in schools.
You have dodged me both times.
I have to therefore come to the conclusion that you are talking out of something other than your mouth.
>>Again, you are misrepresenting me. I have never condoned teaching religious dogma in science class. I merely point out that science is not equipped to answer the supernatural vs natural creation question. It is limited to naturalistic methodologies by definition.
Science has answered the supernatural questions many times. For example, one time the supernatural explanation was that angels carried the sun overhead each day. I don't think that even you still believe that supernatural explanation anymore.
Again, I do not believe that the earth is flat.
And I would stand in proud company with Sir Fred Hoyle, Max Born and Albert Einstein is acknowledging that there is no 'scientific' way to tell whether heliocentrism or geocentrism is true.
I merely point this out to you if you are able to accept it.
You have dodged me both times.
I have to therefore come to the conclusion that you are talking out of something other than your mouth."
No, I have explained both times that it depends on what type of naturalism you are talking about. You posted several different definitions of naturalism and each one was valid in different circumstances.
You aren't playing that old game are you?
>>Well, we do have upstanding men like "Dr. Dino" Kent Hovind and his creationist teachings....oh, wait, he is in prison, oops.
There has to be some "natural" explanation for his fraud.
>>And I would stand in proud company with Sir Fred Hoyle
You mean the thoroughly discredited science fiction writer?
And I can present a stream of 'scientific' explanations that have been proven wrong as well.
Is that the game you want to play?
You don't seem to be bringing any substantive arguments to the discussion.
>>And I would stand in proud company with Sir Fred Hoyle, Max Born and Albert Einstein is acknowledging that there is no 'scientific' way to tell whether heliocentrism or geocentrism is true.
I suppose you want a sticker on science texts for that too?
No, this one:
http://www.cf.ac.uk/maths/wickramasinghe/hoyle.html
I see. You probably have no clue what an inherently hypocritical statement that is.
I frankly don't care what you think about me, because I no longer care about your opinions.
I don't need to demonize you. You've done it to yourself.
Now build me that ark.
You going to give me some new data supporting creationism? I'm waiting.
I want good stuff, peer reviewed, published in the journals, all that stuff. Not just the "its in the bible, therefore it happened" type of data.
This is the age of the lie.
The lie is embraced, while the truth is repudiated.
>>And I would stand in proud company with Sir Fred Hoyle, Max Born and Albert Einstein is acknowledging that there is no 'scientific' way to tell whether heliocentrism or geocentrism is true.
I see that your major scientific readings are off the creationist web sites. I never realized before how many of you are out their that believe the sun revolves around the earth till I just googled.
If you simply don't want to acknowledge that everything you thought science 'proved' is not really true...
I see that you still don't understand what science can say and what it cannot.
That has been the subject of the entire converstion and this is where you end up?
>>If you simply don't want to acknowledge that everything you thought science 'proved' is not really true...
Science does not "prove"; it developes theories.
You didn't answer the question. Do you want a sticker on the science texts explaining that the heliocentric theory is just a theory and that other theories such as the geocentric theory should be discussed?
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.