Really? Why is your nose getting longer, may I ask?
Posted on 01/13/2005 8:33:37 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
Seems to me science teachers should be able to teach science the way scientists see fit, and not according to the peculiar religious beliefs of hack local politicians.
We have nothing in common..........except, of course, that we were created by, and are loved by the same God.
There is no such scientific theory. Kopernicus work was that using the Sun as a point of reference made the system of calculation much easier (need for the multiple epicycles was eliminated) which is a mathematical tangible fact.
On the other hand saying that the Sun has the largest mass in the solar system (in the conext of Newtonian physics)does not make it a center of it as the other bodies also have some mass. You could rather say that the center of gravity is the center of the solar system and it lies 500,000 km outside the Sun surface!
Returning to the imaginery center of the Universe, even the center of our Galaxy (around which our solar system moves) is not such a thing.
It is quite permissible and not anti-scientific at all to use Earth as a point of reference and see it as the center. After all it is the place where God put us, where we dwell and this is what we DO (use it as a center) in our everyday life. BTW, we cannot and should not be scientific in everything - science is too limited for that.
I missed where he said he saw only flaws.
Nonetheless, has the God who supposedly loves you explained to you why there are flaws?
One way or another teachers will do what the politicians/judges/lawmakers/citizens/police will tell them to do. The last time teachers/scientists tried to rule, it ended in a disaster (Soviet Union).
Fine, but my religion is opposed to both general and special relativity as well. Therefore, there really is an absolute center of the solar system and that center is actually the planet Jupiter. Should we then put a disclaimer on science texts that deal with relativity simply because of my beliefs? Or should we realize that relativity is the scientifically accepted theory and simply teach students what exactly is meant by calling something a theory. HINT: It has very little to do with the common usage of the word theory. A hypothesis is more in line with this usage.
Yes.
Read the book of Genesis, then read the New Testament's references to Adam's fall, and Jesus' sacrifice for our redemption.
I will give specific references for you, if you're interested.
Exactly right. I never said that there are only flaws. However, are humans the only perfect creatures, or is everything that God created perfect? If all of God's creation is perfect, then how could humans have eyes with the photoreceptors facing in one direction and squids have eyes with the receptors facing in the opposite direction? If eyes with backwards receptors and the consequent blind spot are perfect, then how can eyes with receptors facing in the opposite direction also be perfect?
Please do. I'd like to see the text of Genesis where the blind spot of the eye is addressed.
Nice try, but in the end, it is still single-celled bacteria of the same species in that Petri dish. They are a bit heartier than the ones that started the colony; but all that was proven was micro-evolution within a species, not macro-evolution between different species.
Really? Why is your nose getting longer, may I ask?
How do you tell of two bacteria are of the same species or different species?
Incorrect. Heliocentricity is a fact. It has been proven by direct observation.
Evolution has not been proven by direct observation, but has been inferred from circumstantial evidence.
There are some physical phenomena that can be observed directly (the sky is blue). These are facts. There are other things that cannot ever be observed directly, but only inferred from other direct observations (the existence of quarks).
A theory is nothing more than an attempt to explain a pattern of observations.
Evolution is a theory. It attempts to explain a set of observations and inferences.
Gravity is a theory for the same reason.
Unfortunately, unlike the theory of gravity, which, even today undergoes revision and critical examination (cosmological constant, negative gravity), evolution is taken as dogma.
One is a literal intrepretation of the bible, including how long a day is. The other realizes that a creator is responsible for order of the universe, the start of evolution and the accident that is the planet earth.
I think ID scares the secular crowd because it does fit with scientific discovery, unlike creationism.
But the real agenda here is to destroy faith and religion in this country by not having it taught to the yutes of america.
The judge in today's ruling says that saying that evolution is a theory is an endorsement of a religion. Now there is a leap in logic indeed!
It would be much more accurate to say the the founding documents endorse a creator - but that because they do they are all unconstitutional!
The reference in Genesis, as you most likely have heard, even though you don't believe it, is that man chose to sin. The world was created perfect, as were we, but our choice to sin (each one of us) has resulted in the imperfections that now exist.
The broad spiritual truth exists far above the details that you have chosen to argue with.
I was speaking hypothetically; of course I personally practice no such religion. But are you willing to say that it's not possible for some fringe religion to be opposed to just about any scientific theory you'd care to name? By your standard, as long as they are citizens/voters and pay the taxes, they should be able to get such a disclaimer about any scientific theory. My point is that evolution shares the same scientific status as any other theory in science. If it's ridiculous to put a disclaimer about relativity or atomic theory or any other theory in a science text, then it's just as ridiculous to put such a disclaimer about evolution.
I realize that your first statement is tongue in cheek, but supposing for a moment that there were an absolute gravitational center to the entire universe and that we are in its vicinity, there is nothing in that cosmology that would be discordant with the theory of relativity, as far as I can tell. Therefore the point about religion is irrelevant.
Cordially,
You would have to assume that those persons would not have that faith if it wasn't supported by science. If those people have the faith and believe by faith, then find some science to show naysayers, it would not be so....
And to come up with something, like ID, for which no evidence can be found, and equate it with something legitimate like evolution, is an insult to science.
I take offence to that one! There are so many holes in the theory and actual scientific evidence against it, that evolution could not possibly explain the origins of life. In fact the dogmatic insistence of some professed scientists that evolution is true, or even believable, is quite scary.
OTOH, if you were to assume for just a second that ID is true, how could one prove it scientifically? Short of witnessing it, the best that can be done is to not be able to prove it false. Really the only way to prove it false would be to prove another theory. As I stated above, Evolution has really already been dis-proven and there are currently no other theories available.
If you are in a spaceship, how can you tell whether it's the earth moving around the sun or the sun moving around the earth. Nobody has ever looked at the solar system from outside and nobody has ever directly observed the earth's motion around the sun. What has been observed are the consequences of that motion, not the motion itself.
The sticker was dumb but they had a right to leave it in. It's not as if they were gonna learn any science other than scaremongering environmentalism anyway.
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.