Skip to comments.
Revote today [Dover, PA school board]
York Daily Record [Penna] ^
| 03 January 2006
| TOM JOYCE
Posted on 01/03/2006 12:12:37 PM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 1,061-1,070 next last
To: PatrickHenry
Thanks for the info - very interesting article.
441
posted on
01/04/2006 9:27:31 AM PST
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: JamesP81; Dimensio
The FR member you're calling "Troll" is 3 years your senior around here.
Perchance you don't know what is a "troll?"
442
posted on
01/04/2006 9:30:02 AM PST
by
ASA Vet
(Those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know.)
To: betty boop
You are making an unwarranted assumption that that is how I approach questions of truth with regard to the natural world. And you would be mistaken, my friend.
Indeed, that is
not the way
you approach such questions!
443
posted on
01/04/2006 9:30:52 AM PST
by
Alamo-Girl
(Monthly is the best way to donate to Free Republic!)
To: Fester Chugabrew
"The effects of gravity can be observed, and have been, repeatedly."
Very well then. So can "the effects of God."No they can't.
Provide proof that doesn't require a belief in God.
444
posted on
01/04/2006 9:32:49 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: doc30
Another service of Darwin Central.
445
posted on
01/04/2006 9:33:32 AM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
446
posted on
01/04/2006 9:39:02 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: PatrickHenry; doc30
447
posted on
01/04/2006 9:44:21 AM PST
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: highball
Provide proof that doesn't require a belief in God.Have you forgotten? You can't prove a negative.
To: tortoise
449
posted on
01/04/2006 9:48:45 AM PST
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: joesbucks; betty boop; xzins
Thank you for sharing your views and your concerns! Truly this particular case was more about the supporters of the intelligent design movement than the movement itself much less the intelligent design hypothesis.
Correlation is not causation.
The appearance of storks and babies at the same time does not mean there is a causal relationship.
Likewise, that most all atheists are evolutionist does not mean that there is a causal relationship between the two or that evolution should not be taught because it would establish atheism as the state religion.
And likewise, the intelligent design hypothesis must stand or fall on its own merits - regardless of who is supporting it or is against it and their motives or behavior.
My two cents...
450
posted on
01/04/2006 9:49:52 AM PST
by
Alamo-Girl
(Monthly is the best way to donate to Free Republic!)
To: Fester Chugabrew
You admit, then, that you cannot provide objective evidence for "the effects of God"?
451
posted on
01/04/2006 9:50:28 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: RadioAstronomer
So would a high school science teacher be doing his career a favor if he introduced his class to the scientific evidence for gender differences in spatial ability? Would any public school teacher in America dare such a thing?
All many of us have ever asked is that our opinion be considered. That opinion being that perhaps there is a God who's the author of all that we see. We haven't demanded the censorship of anything. Yet, feminists and other PC groups can demand outright censorship of scientific data, and the heroic evo-warriors who bask in the glow of media adoration for battling "fundies" tuck their tail between their legs and run for cover when a media-approved group wants to politicize science.
452
posted on
01/04/2006 9:57:42 AM PST
by
puroresu
(Conservatism is an observation; Liberalism is an ideology)
To: highball
Objective evidence, yes. Conclusive proof, no.
To: puroresu
All many of us have ever asked is that our opinion be considered. When your "opinion" can be expressed in scientific terms, it should absolutely be considered. Until then, you're asking for special treatment for your opinion and your opinion alone.
454
posted on
01/04/2006 10:00:02 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: Fester Chugabrew
Objective evidence, yes. Conclusive proof, no.So why all the smokescreen? Where's the objective evidence that doesn't require proof in God?
455
posted on
01/04/2006 10:00:40 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: Fester Chugabrew
Apologies. That should be "Where's the objective evidence that doesn't require
belief in God?"
Need more coffee.
456
posted on
01/04/2006 10:01:26 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: highball
Can you provide objective evidence that matter is not organized and does not behave according to predictable laws?
To: Fester Chugabrew
There you go again....
You make specific claims, then when pressed for support, you ask someone else to prove that your claims are not true.
458
posted on
01/04/2006 10:05:31 AM PST
by
highball
("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
To: highball
As far as I know, objective evidence is free to be interpreted with or without the "requirement" of God.
To: highball
I wasn't asking for proof. I was asking for objective evidence. The two are not synonymous.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440, 441-460, 461-480 ... 1,061-1,070 next 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson