Posted on 02/03/2008 12:58:53 PM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
...For most of my life, I believed the answers to these questions were fairly straightforward. Everything that exists is created by a Loving God. That includes rocks, trees, animals, people, really everything. All along I had been well aware that other people, very smart people, believe otherwise. Rather than God's handiwork, they see the universe as the product of random particle collisions and chemical reactions. And rather than regard humankind as carrying the spark of the divine, they believe we are nothing more than mud animated by lightning...
Trailer requires Shockwave Flash:
Super TrailerMore trailers here:
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playgroundvideo3.swf
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/video.phpIMDB page:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/
(Excerpt) Read more at expelledthemovie.com ...
Actually no. I quoted from the article you linked to that said that salamanders that "rarely" interbred were different species. That means they CAN interbreed.
In the case of the salamanders the endpoint populations are immediately adjacent to one another, closing the "ring" of the ring species. They do not normally interbreed even though adjacent because of physical and behavioral differences.
Using the same definition used for salamanders, blacks and whites "rarely" interbred in many cultures and societies throughout time.
Humans are known to interbreed wherever they come into contact.
A devout Muslim would never interbreed with a devout Christian and vice-versa. By the definition of "species" given in the article why are they not different species?
Not everyone but the believers "know" it's true because of faith. If you take something that is premised in faith and remove it from the realm of faith and bring it to the realm of science, it's going to fail the science test even if it is the absolute truth.
If I wanted to shake people's belief in a creator, that is exactly how I'd do it, by studying faith in the faithless ( necessarily faithless ) realm of science.
“Nothing in Science factors God out of the equation.”
Unless you are in a classroom?
And no, it wasn’t a flyby. It was an illustration of how ridiculous an arguement you used earlier.
Again, I admit that using Nazi’s to point out ne’s side is stupid. Thus the disclaimer.
No drive by about it. It’s called “satire”.
Dawkins is just as wrong when he says that Science supports atheism as when someone else says that Science supports their particular creed.
And not enough “scientists” tout this line for me to take that seriously.
Of course it would because science doesn't deal with truth.
That's why, because although science may be a useful tool for learning more about the world around us and improving our lot through technology, is useless for anything else.
Most of life cannot be reduced to a scientific experiment, or cannot be demonstrated to have even happened *scientifically*. Sadly, there are some, evos in particular, that have tried to force the whole world in their blinkered little box of naturalism, where anything that cannot be observed, measured, or tested doesn't exist. It has no value, isn't even real, if it can't be dealt with *scientifically*.
The whole world doesn't need to be proved *scientifically* because it can't be. Science can't even prove scientifically what it claims to have say over. Cosmology can't be proved scientifically. Neither can what life is. Many forces cannot be directly measured by are determined to exist by the affect they have on other objects. Evolution is determined to have happened based on the fossil record and similarities between species but the kind of speication that is claimed to have happened in nature is only deduced. It has never been caused to intentionally happen even with the deliberate manipulation by humans.
That kind of deduction is considered valid when used by *scientists* dealing with what they consider *scientific* issues, but rejected by them when applied to other areas of life. It's got to be good for both or rejected for both. It's hypocritical to say that deduction is valid when it supports my point of view but not valid when it doesn't.
Science is a great means to an end but is lousy as an end in and of itself. If scientists want to pretend that the world outside their little box doesn't exist because they've deliberately excluded it so it wouldn't upset their little world view, that's their prerogative. They're just in no position to criticize others as ignorant because they don't want to join them in their little delusion that their box is all there is.
Believing that nothing exists outside the box takes faith in it's own right.
There's a whole world of reality that exists that science can't even touch. If someone chooses to live in that little box, that's their choice, but they cannot go around telling everyone else they're wrong about the world that exists outside their box, when they've never even considered that it exists.
I suppose we see things differently then.
I see a world that works together beautifully and I see a creator who cared about how it looked.
Yes I understand you merely use the empirical method.
I also understand you disdain ID and you do not respect the idea.
I disagree with you.
I see something that is complex and orderly and I happen to think there is something behind that complexity, and it is something isn’t random chance.
If you are an evolutionist, then you do not have an independent empirical basis for your belief system. You are essentially invoking “naturalism in the gaps”.
Are you suggesting that Adam Smith was wrong, and that centrally planned economies are really more robust than free economies?
This does not look like an answer to the question:
Do you think our schools are dumbed-down factories run by “liberals” who will allow no beliefs but their own?
The same way you 'test' Darwin's.
Vote for PEDRO!
Yeah...
Sure...
Well... this IS a CONSERVATIVE site; NOT some ding-dang knuckle draggin', gap-toothed, Bible thumpin', 'shine drinkin' BLOG!
--EvoDude(Why can't these Crazy Creationists just SHUT UP!)
One good(?) mental experiment...
There IS another Judge.
Coyoteman knows that science is based on the philosophy of naturalism, yet he continues to present his beliefs as though they are empirical facts. They aren't.
Naturalists want you to believe that the battle is between empiricism and a philosophy. It isn't. They simply cannot admit that their beliefs are based on the philosophy of naturalism as that makes it clear that the battle is between competing philosophies and the reasons for choosing one philosophy over another are... philosophical.
So. . .you’re saying a scientist should never utter a word about their philosophical beliefs?
I'd say you aren't paying enough attention. The point that science is based on the philosophy of naturalism, has it's own belief structure and is not any more empirical than the intelligent design position is the key to understanding the issue.
If you understand the impact of this reality on the pronouncements of science, you would understand that it reduces it to a competing philosophy and not an empirical standard. This is something that the naturalists never mention. And for good reason.
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.