Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Multiverse theory—unknown science or illogical raison d’être? (multiverse invented to replace God?)
CMI ^ | Gary Bates

Posted on 11/18/2009 5:58:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

New Scientist magazine is generally regarded by the secular community as one of the top-ranked science magazines in the world. However, a published opinion by a regular columnist demonstrated how “unscientific” and anti-God some of their articles have become—something we have documented before (see Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions).

Amanda Gefter wrote an article discussing multiverse theory, or the idea that our universe may be only one of many that currently exist. Such speculations attempt to explain away the appearance of design in the universe, because of, as we shall see, the spiritual implications. In an article called What’s God got to do with it she wrote: ...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: astronomy; belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; christianity; christianright; cosmogony; cosmology; creation; electricuniverse; evangelical; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; multiverse; nasa; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; space; spammer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 last
To: goodusername; MrB

Go ahead. Give us some evidence that evolutionists are smarter than creationists.

Show us how creationism has hurt science education over the years.

Show us how getting creation out of public schools has improved science education.

Give us the mountains of evidence the evos keep appealing to like they do for their support of the ToE.

Heck, give us ANY evidence.

Why do evos continue to advocate for something that has NO evidence to support it, like teaching evolution and keeping creation out of schools is going to help science education, or that teaching creation will harm it?

Why the hypocrisy and double standard? It wouldn’t be because there’s an agenda, now would it?


161 posted on 11/20/2009 6:41:05 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: goodusername

I have some land in FL to sell you. Great waterfront property.

Guaranteed.


162 posted on 11/20/2009 6:43:10 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: goodusername

I guess you don’t realize that the AVERAGE homeschooler
scores in the 85th (ie, “elite”) percentile on standardized tests.


163 posted on 11/20/2009 6:43:52 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: wendy1946; goodusername

With graduation rates approaching 40% in some locales, ......

Go ahead, goodusername, throw in your lot with them.

It says a lot about you that you’d put ideology above what’s demonstrated to work, or not to work.


164 posted on 11/20/2009 6:45:19 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Evolution uber alles.....

Even at the expense of a child’s education.

How sad.


165 posted on 11/20/2009 6:46:40 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; valkyry1; Mr. Silverback; Gordon Greene; metmom; ...
You want to replace facts with belief. It is you who is taking the liberal position.

Nope. You're the one who's taking a "liberal position", because you're flapping your gums about a subject you obviously don't know a **** thing about.

166 posted on 11/20/2009 7:17:23 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (There are only two REAL conservatives in America - myself, and my chosen Presidential candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Thanks for the ping!


167 posted on 11/20/2009 7:19:30 AM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“I guess you don’t realize that the AVERAGE homeschooler
scores in the 85th (ie, “elite”) percentile on standardized tests.”

—Yes, I did. But the question was regarding home schooled students only taught Creationism, and knowledge of science.


168 posted on 11/20/2009 8:46:06 AM PST by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: goodusername

Then your public skooled kid would get blown away. Unless the “science” test was exclusively about evolution theology.

A science test though encompasses much more than that.


169 posted on 11/20/2009 9:05:18 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: goodusername; MrB
—Yes, I did. But the question was regarding home schooled students only taught Creationism, and knowledge of science.

If teaching only creation was such a detriment to science education, please elucidate on how so much progress was made in science in the hundreds of years before Darwin published his book, and before creation was shoved out of the public school system through litigation.

170 posted on 11/20/2009 10:44:57 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“If teaching only creation was such a detriment to science education, please elucidate on how so much progress was made in science in the hundreds of years before Darwin published his book, and before creation was shoved out of the public school system through litigation.”

—When did I ever say that teaching creation was a detriment to science?
Science did do well before Darwin’s theory was published, but that doesn’t mean that we should go back to teaching that diseases come from an imbalance of the four humors, that the four basic elements are earth, wind, water, and fire, and the phlogiston theory.
I would think that “science class” should be a class for teaching the scientific method and the leading scientific theories (otherwise, why call it “science class”?)


171 posted on 11/20/2009 10:54:37 AM PST by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: goodusername; MrB
Science did do well before Darwin’s theory was published, but that doesn’t mean that we should go back to teaching that diseases come from an imbalance of the four humors, that the four basic elements are earth, wind, water, and fire, and the phlogiston theory.

Um, that WAS the science of the day.

You can't blame those on creationism.

172 posted on 11/20/2009 10:56:37 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Um, that WAS the science of the day.
You can’t blame those on creationism.”

—Exactly. Just because science did well in 1800, doesn’t mean we should go back to teaching science as if it was 1800.


173 posted on 11/20/2009 11:04:36 AM PST by goodusername
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson