Posted on 12/14/2008 8:37:32 AM PST by tpanther
Yeah, like asking if evolution is a fact is a trick theological question.
Sounds more like paranoia to me......
Funny, I didn’t see the word “natural” anywhere...and when you come up with that...tell us who gets to define natural.
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification.
In reference to:
Science isn't about truth anyway
Certainly not avoided or quoted, and completely unqualified.
Ask the guys at caltech. They're the ones who state it.
My contention is simply reminding those who seem to think that science is about finding out the truth, that it isn't according to their side. Their side doesn't seem to think that truth is relevant to science.
If someone is going to go about making claims that science is about truth when scientists themselves state that it isn't, they need to be informed of that.
“I don’t mean to be snarky, but I got my fill of metaphysical discussions about things like the difference between Truth and Reality in the freshman dorm.”
This isn’t a metaphysical discussion, it’s a simple question......would you prefer your beliefs to be based on Science, or Reality (the Truth)?
Do the scientists say that "science isn't about truth"?
Does it really matter if the aeronautical engineer's work is based on science when he designs the plane you're going to ride in? Yes it does, if don't want to fall out of the sky.
Does it really matter if the biology teacher's curriculum is based on science? Yes it does, if you want students to learn actual science.
Does it really matter if a poster's views are informed solely by religion and cannot be changed by any amount of scientific evidence? Only if that poster is pretending to discuss the merits of a scientific theory within the context of science.
Keep in mind Scott...all these things occured LONG before Godless liberals began demanding things like "there's no place for God in science class" from children.
As a matter of fact, science did quite well UNTIL godless liberalism infected gov schools and gave us idiocy like manmade global warming!
Like you should check with yours when it comes to equating Christianity with militant Islam on the subject of creation?
I guess it just goes to show how far science has moved from its roots.
I guess I don't have the infantile worldview where all things scientific and all things religious must always be kept separate as to not somehow infect each other.
I can also understand that not all things have to be either scientific or religious, especially when it comes to origins/evolution.
So disagreement with evolution doesn't have to be on religious grounds, but it would be infantile to disagree with it on purely scientific grounds.
That's a bit like saying water is wet.
How much information, and how do you measure it, and in what units?
Does an Amoeba with a genome many times longer than that of a human, have more information? If so, how do you quantify that? If not, why not?
If you can't quantify the amount of information, how do you justify claiming that evolution would have to increase the amount of information?
js:How much information, and how do you measure it, and in what units?
Does an Amoeba with a genome many times longer than that of a human, have more information? If so, how do you quantify that? If not, why not?
So what does that all have to do with his statement? He's stating that coded information is indicative of intelligence. Where do you pull any inference that he said anything like the rest of what you're asking him from? Do you deny that DNA contains coded information?
js: If you can't quantify the amount of information, how do you justify claiming that evolution would have to increase the amount of information?
Evos are the ones claiming that information is added in evolution. That might be a good question for them to answer.
Define information. How do you measure it? In what units?
I'm not aware of any serious biologists who claim to be able to answer these questions. Heck, I know for a fact that no one in the ID community will attempt to answer them. And yet they scream about information as if it were established science.They even publish estimates of probability based on information, but if you ask them to show the math they clam up.
I will say that Dembski has recently published a paper admitting that selection can add information to a biological system. And anyone who has played 20 questions knows that yes or no answers supplies information.
Those 'facts' contain an AWFUL lot of what-if's and maybe's.
Only to those whose Faith is weak.
(BTW- See my Tagline)
This would be a handy little point if you could supply some valid peer review of evolution, much less be able to show us some where it was done objectively...say where a creationist scientist were to submit his work without his name attached to it, annonymously.
It's disingenuous to scream that creationists inject religion into science class, when serious peer review of evolution is always attacked as "religion injected into science".
What a nice tidy little delusion!
But it would be "infantile" for them to keep them separate. Nice.
Here's a clue Doctor liberal loser drive by confused as to which board you're on....
it's weak to be a confused drive-by liberal loser. That's the only thing that's REALLY weak here!
I think the delusion here is really simple...your faith is weak if you don't believe their faith.
(Must be a doctor of a romper room).
Over your head...it’s infantile to insist such thing exists in the first place!
Maybe infantile is a little too advanced for you.
evo-cultists don't have to answer the questions they ask...didn't you get the memo?
It was the one along with the idea that ID had to be measurable and testable and so on...you know, right there with multiverse, string and M-theory.
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.