I see hypocrite people. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're hypocrites.
Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
About time.
I see hypocrite people. They only see what they want to see. They don't know they're hypocrites.
Oh but the Lord in His infinite wisdom foreknowledge, knew one of His creation would say that so He provided an account ...Allow me to help you
Gen.2: 7 ...the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
AND
Gen. 2:21-22 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
There is nothing philosophical when I say ID is not science or to be more precise, a valid scientific theory. Science isn't based on "supernatural" or some "invisible hand" explanation is it? No... quite the contrary. You do not see meterologists blame an "invisible intelligence" explaning the weather do you. Are theories of Gravity explained by an intelligence "pulling" or pushing you down? Volcanologists do not say "that eruption took place because of some unknown intelligence" do they? And thankfully, no aeronautical scientist gives any credit to an invisible hand holding up our airplanes.
Now... why is it that this certain branch of Biology should become the exception??
Is it entitled to be upheld as the only one to enjoy legal status in a public, academic, or scientific context?
Isn't that the beauty of Science... that theories that explain phenomena can be superseded by better theories? Problem is, no one has come up with a better theory for Evolution because the thing has so much evidence backing it up.
Now your problem is, friend, is ID has no evidence. It doesn't stand up to any scientific scrutiny whatsoever. Now if you can come up with a better explanation of what we see in nature then by all means... propose it to the scientific community and let it takes its course. It will either stand on its merits and eventually be adopted... or it will fail. If it is adopted... then by golly then teach it in public schools... otherwise... don't do the old "run around" game where you completely subvert a process that works.
See... you say Evolution gets "special treatment" but that is a LIE. ID is the one wanting special treatment... it wants to be adopted without any scientific scrutiny whatsoever... and to me... that is so wrong.
See... I believe that if it works... use it. If it doesn't... throw it out. Capitalism works and is very successful, communism doesn't. The scientific method works and is very successful... "supernatural explanations" to explain phenomena do not.
So do you see now how this isn't philosophical at all? I wish I knew where you got that one from.
Everything you say is fine... But should it be taught in science class? Is this how we want to solve all scientific phenomena, by looking it up in the Bible?
"Oh but the Lord in His infinite wisdom foreknowledge, knew one of His creation would say that so He provided an account ...Allow me to help you..."
That's the story; I've read it before. It doesn't match the physical evidence. I'll take that.
I told puroresu that I think that schoolboards should select textbooks that clearly state in the introduction what science is and isn't.
And with all the emphasis in the news lately on the boundaries of science and nonscience, any text written from now on that doesn't do that is completely worthless.
I issue a public challenge right here to puroresu to find a scientist or evo that disagrees with my premise.
That is funny because 50% can't find Iraq and 60% of Americans cannot find Mississippi on a map. Did you know that? Maybe Mississippi is a lie also, maybe it doesn't exist. I dunno, I been there recently and it sure seems to be there. Another sad statistic, 30% says knowing how to find stuff on a map is not important. I bet a high percent of those people at ID'ers. Wish we had that statistic.
By the way, Evolution has evidence, ID has.... nothing except for carnival acts being passed off as proof. If ID is so true and Evolution so false... why the "human and dinosaur footprints" you guys try and pass off as truth?
No its not fine, its the Truth
Either truth is absolute or NOTHING is true
EVO Theory is taught why not present another "theory" and let people make up their own minds
And what makes you think all scientific phenomena can or will be solved?
For every scientific phenomena that you can point to as being solved I can point to another that has not been solved by all the brilliant scientific minds combined
BTW archaeology is till trying to keep up with the Biblical facts. Finding artifacts and cities that science claimed didn't exist until digs proved them wrong.
Your entire post was philosophical. You cannot empirically test the assertion that "ID is not science." You can only argue for the assertion philosphically.
And may I ask what makes intelligent design "supernatural?" Are you spooked by orgnized matter that peforms specific functions? Intelligent design is the stuff of science. Without it nothing would be observable or quantifiable, let alone intelligible.
One of the most popular high school biology texts, by Kenneth Miller, does exactly that. For each book at this site, click on "teacher site" and then chapter one: Textbooks by Ken Miller & Joe Levine.
The free enterprise system isn't interested in ideology -- only what works. Business executives are results-oriented, and if there's a legal way to use knowledge to earn profits, they'll do it. But somehow, despite the incentives to stay ahead of the competition, flood geologists aren't recruited by the oil industry, creation scientists aren't hired as researchers for the biotech industry or pharmaceutical firms, and specialists in Noah's Ark aren't in demand by naval architects.
Darwinism is not good science. Hence, it needs a bodyguard of ACLU thugs to keep the critics away.
Fine... then let's stop studying ALL natural pheneomena because in the end, it is all God's will is it not? I mean... what is the point in studying ANY science if in the end, that is the answer? Why bother studying the weather, or physics. Heck let's stop studying new medicines because if you are sick, God must want you to be sick so quit trying to subvert His will.
Did you know that Ben Franklin was chastised by the clergy for creating the lightning rod because of that very reason? If your house or barn was hit by lightning then YOU must have done something to deserve it. Got one on your house or barn? Take it down NOW! That is what the clergy said then and if it was right then... its right now
EVO Theory is taught why not present another "theory" and let people make up their own minds
That's right... let's teach ID... it is equal to Evolution because it explains the evidence we see in the fossil record. Oh wait, all that so called "fossil evidence" has to go right? I mean... contradicts the Bible and as you say, there can only be one truth, right?? ID'ers say the Earth isn't much more than 6000 years old so guess what? That radiometric dating technique scientists use; we gotta get rid of that. Let's teach another theory that also has no proof that proves radiometric dating is wrong. It is a "subversive technology" that teaches people to believe that the Earth and life is older then the Bible says it is and that just can't be, right? Because there only is one truth... and you know it... and it cannot be any other way than your way... no matter what the evidence says. IF there is contrary evidence... that was planted by an atheist scientist. You are so right those devil worshipers are just the most subversive things. But we will show them, we will toss those so called fossils into a pit and we will nuke em. Heck we will make the burning of the Alexandria library look like a fire cracker.
Now all we gotta do is make some human footprints and put them alongside some dinosaur tracks and there is the proof we need. What? It's been done before and everyone laughed at it. Heck just do it again we got 58% of the people on our side and we need to bump that up. Cause remember, there is only one truth and that is our truth no matter what those pointed tailed devil worshipping scientists say.
And what makes you think all scientific phenomena can or will be solved?
Who said it can? But at least it tries to find the truth right? The attempt for the truth is sometimes more important than finding it. The journey is more important than reaching the destination.
BTW archaeology is till trying to keep up with the Biblical facts. Finding artifacts and cities that science claimed didn't exist until digs proved them wrong.
Sure they thought a lot of those places were just legends. They were wrong. Wow... I guess that means ALL science is wrong. I am GLAD you set me straight on this.
Exactly. This is what your side is.
Not me. I find it more common for creationists, as you indeed do in this message, to share the assumption of "scientific atheists" that science exclusively represents valid knowledge.
You don't recognize it because you say that science is incomplete without "art, philosophy, religion," etc. But what do you mean by "religion?" Obviously by including it in with art and philosophy you hold it to be speculative
So is science.
and subjective,
Actually, no, I do NOT consider (well formulated) philosophical and religious claims to be "subjective".
with no claims to facticity whatsoever.
No. This is not my opinion. You fail as a mind reader.
I live for this $#!t!
The Coyoteman Game of Death*: just one of those little things that make these thousand post threads worthwhile. :-)
*A Bruce Lee reference somehow seems fitting...
Exactly. Evolutionary theory neither needs nor seeks such defense in the professional market place of scientific ideas: the domain where science is actually practiced and scientific ideas are put to the test.
It's only in the field of science education that a defense is regrettably necessary against political activism initiated by antievolutionists, who seek to AVOID the normal review and testing of scientific ideas and instead have their views included in curricula on an "affirmative action" basis.
Darwinism is not good science. Hence, it needs a bodyguard of ACLU thugs to keep the critics away.
Again, the "critics" AVOID real scientific debate almost entirely. The problem is that if they enter the debate then their ideas must be subjected to potential refutation and abandonment, like any other scientific idea is. But they're not willing to risk their ideas in this fashion (because they are, in fact, religious dogmas) and therefore choose political debate (and effective exemption from normal scientific review) instead.
Sad. Especially from conservatives who normally advocate the competition of ideas.
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.