Posted on 07/08/2008 11:48:40 AM PDT by neverdem
Nothing. But it's not science.
You make a very compelling argument. It's one that I hear frequently from Darwinists who, by their own estimation, have science on their side.
But, as free-thinker, consider this potential problem with Darwin's theory. If evolution is a constant process, and if every creature that has ever existed has evolved, then what would a reasonable person expect to typically see in the fossil record? A continuum of transitional forms, perhaps?
In fact, the fossil record typically shows stasis in species, that is, creatures typically enter and exit the fossil record unchanged.
Now, if you consider the theory of evolution to be true a priori, then this should pose no problem for you. But, call me crazy, I prefer to believe theories that fit the evidence.
I prefer the term “Spaghedeity.”
One thing is for sure....you cannot mix science and religious beliefs very much.
“In fact, the fossil record typically shows stasis in species, that is, creatures typically enter and exit the fossil record unchanged.”
??
If there can be a "before" the known laws of physics, there can also be an "outside" of the known laws of physics. And if the universe has a Creator, one who actually created the whole of space and time and all the laws that science seeks to discover and understand, He must be in that "outside," since if He were "inside," He would not be the Creator, just as a statue cannot be its own sculptor.
How then do we "test" for Him? Perhaps by finding His fingerprints: the Anthropic Principle, evidence of design in life, communications with mankind that can be tested and authenticated, etc.
Oh, but I forgot: We're not allowed to even inquire in such directions. It's just not scientific--at least not according to the modern priests of atheism and humanism.
I see that you, too, have been touched by His noodly appendage.
If Louisiana is opening up the floodgates then we need to make sure that the spagnostics don't deny the CoFSM its rightful place in the classroom.
Let the congregation say "Ramen".
According to “curiosity” (FR poster), only empirically falsafiable can be used to separate science from other disciplines.
If humans are born and grow, then one would expect to find a continuum of transitional forms.
And yet, the record of thirty-year-olds in the 1950 census shows them to be thirty years old, exactly like the thirty-year-olds in the 2000 census.
TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!
The “modern priests of atheism and humanism” set up the parameters of discussion (science/materialism) to exclude the Creator,
then state that they’ve disproved the Creator.
That’s not science, that’s dogma.
You set forth a possible observation, the results of which are not yet known, and set forth the test "Result X would indicate the absence of such an entity".
Ball's in your court....
Are you being stupid or dishonest?
I said nothing about the certainty, but that God would be subjected to the same rules as all other phenomena in science.
And science won’t let you move the goalposts.
Yeah. You go on and take that before a federal judge.
Don't forget to bring your jammies.
But, as free-thinker, consider this potential problem with the theory of intelligent design. If life is intelligently designed, then what would a reasonable person expect to typically see in the fossil record? No particular pattern at all — features like exoskeletons, endoskeletons, feathers, wings, etc going in and out of fashion just like the clothing and automotive designs intelligently created by humans. For example, spines might appear in 600-million-year-old strata, vanish about 450 million years ago, make a brief nostalic reappearance 300 million years back, etc.
One other prediction of intelligent design is the total absence of any vestigal features. One would certainly not expect to find traces of bits of anatomy found in ancestral species, just as one would not expect to find stamping patterns indicating some faint trace of 1950s tailfins in the metal structures of a modern automobile.
Anyone can see that THIS is THE idiotic statement of this entire thread.
No, but those tests and observations have led us to the Big Bang. And as theories develop and instruments get better, we’ll have even more evidence. And if the evidence and theory points to something else, that something else will take the place of the Big Bang.
But anyway, you are asking for mutually exclusive things, first you want to say that “God is outside observation” then you want to say “Traces of God is observable.”
You can’t have it both ways. If you want God to be a part of science, if He doesn’t exist following the rules of science, then you would have to admit God doesn’t exist.
And, I might add - proof of my premise of
"proof by arrogant condescension".
To date, the number of atheists that I've conversed with that aren't arrogant condescending asses: 0.
Intelligent design encompasses many different theories.
Do you believe God can do everything?
If the FSM helps you dismiss all of the reasoned objections raised against common descent, that is a tragedy.
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.