Posted on 08/18/2008 9:35:10 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Well yes, except it conflicts with the literal word of the Bible.
But since you admit that the literal word can't be taken seriously, you have no reason to remain a flat-earther with respect to biology.
There was a time when people were imprisoned for saying the earth orbited the sun. Were they reading a different Bible?
IIRC, that's exactly the rationale that Issac Newton used when he began his scientific inquiry but I believe that there are others more informed on what he thought so I'm courtesy pinging them.
Like socialist Democrats who expect their revealed Marxist bible to explain everything, non-scientist religionists often insist that their revealed Christian bible explains everything.
They then expect science to explain everything in just as much detail.
Religions fill in the blanks with whatever they make up to fit and their "evidence" is the books they write -- fictional, cooked, or made up out of whole cloth -- without any reliance on how their story fits with the real, verifiable world. If in doubt, or if faced with a sticky problem they cop out with "God did it." or "God works in mysterious ways." Any criticism of the original revealed dogma is heresy.
Scientists may also make stuff up or make educated guesses, but they test their theories and discard that which doesn't fit with the real, verifiable world. The scientific "bible" is edited, revised, and rewritten to fit with what can be verified. Generally accepted "laws" of a hundred or a thousand years ago are often found to be unsupportable and thus are revised or discarded. All this uncertainty is not accepted by religionists who fall back on a supposedly infallible Bible.
BTW, the Bible was also edited, revised and rewritten to make for a better book to run theocracies with.
Anyone who would misuse the judiciary through the threat or misuse of lawsuits, to force on the unwilling populace their point of view alone, to the exclusion of all others.
Can you say "thought police"?
Rather than teaching facts you would have the schools teaching superstitions, as long as they were your superstitions, eh?
At the very least you and your fellow believers want a veto power over what facts are taught.
Google "The Enlightenment." We don't need a theocracy to tell us how to believe, whether it be your version or any other.
Conjectures are at the very heart of science, but to be theories or hypotheses they must lead to research. There is currently no program of research that could confirm or disconfirm string theory. There are merely mathematical models that are self-consistent or not.
Abiogenesis is an active and productive realm of research, but there is no hypothesis that puts the pieces together. Such was the world of astronomy before Newton and Einstein. A clever person might note that heliocentrism was pretty well established as the best description of the planetary system long before there was a clean mathematical basis. We're talking centuries here.
Is Hawking a scientist? LOL. Experimental physicists might say no. There's always been a feud between experimental and theoretical physicists. It's one of those things that can't happen in science because all scientists bow to a central authority.
Both of these liberal groups love the very liberal Big Government Public School Monopoly run top-down by the far, far left.
From what I have seen in the crevo threads, the evidence suggest you are spot-on.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Privatize universal K-12 education. Complete separation of school and state. Begin this process.
Stop the bullying!
Darwinist can choose schools that reflect the religious worldview in their homes, and the rest can choose schools that reinforce their values.
But....As I have previously noted, Darwinists are the biggest defenders of police threat government schools. What bullies!
That accusation wouldn't be anything like what Einstein did when he made up the *cosmological constant* and stuck it in his formulas in a vain effort to make his calculations fit the theory, now would it? You know, the calculations that showed that the universe had a beginning, something the scientists of his day (the steady state theory days), didn't want to admit?
And he didn't like what they showed, so he tried to fudge the data to fit the theory instead of adjusting the theory to fit the data, that is until Hubble's data showed redshift that laid to rest the steady state theory beyond the shadow of a doubt. And then Einstein admitted that he was wrong,.... sort of.... by calling it a "mistake"....
You mean something like that attempt at deliberate fraud by a man who claimed to be a scientist?
Now what was that about scientists being objective?
The Darwinists are the biggest cheerleaders of the police threat compulsory government schools.
Can you spell bully?
Answer: D*A*R*W*I*N*S*T!
Sources?
Which versions? When and by whom? What were the revisions?
Well just damn. Can we say Scopes? Can we say the creationism laws in Arkansas, both of which were shot down? Can we say Dover?
Just what the hell gives theists the right to butt into science classes with religious stuff that can't even be examined by science? It reminds me a bit of the French, who have legal bodies devoted to defining what the French language can and cannot be.
Science is not done by lawyers or school boards. The findings of science are not subject to the whim of school boards run by people who can't even realize what a joke they are.
I differ somewhat from typical evilutionists. I want the confrontation. I look forward to it. I can't wait for some dumb as a brick school board to tries teaching "scientific alternatives to evolution." I will load up on popcorn.
“Scientists may also make stuff up or make educated guesses, but they test their theories and discard that which doesn’t fit with the real, verifiable world.”
In your dreams.....
Studies examine withholding of scientific data among researchers, trainees
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1565120/posts
It May Look Authentic; Here’s How to Tell It Isn’t
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1563746/posts
Bye bye for the night. Just sayin’ I hope to see y’all in court. Nothing is more entertaining than a creationist under oath.
I believe the rocks are less than 10,000 years old. And scientists who hold to this position should be allowed to present the evidence in support of a young earth and the evidence that falsifies an old earth. And the scientists on the opposite side of the debate should be allowed to do the exact same thing.lol... what about that dastardly speed of light?
==You’ve tried to answer a question about the age of core samples taken from Antartica with an article about someone’s speculation about the formation of the Greenaland ice sheet based on incidental data, and that ice sheet is a physically much different propostion that what’s found in Antarctica.
That’s interesting. Wasn’t it you who said the following re: the Greenland ice cores:
“I don’t see any positive evidence is support of YEC theory or any kind of analysis of those ice cores that verifies or supports the 6-10k year hypothesis.”
I guess you have decided to change the subject now that you realize that the evidence coming out of Greenland is better explained by recent catastrophism, rather than it being a record of “millions or billions” of years.
==what about that dastardly speed of light?
What about it?
yet for some reason also, even if these values are “beneficial to survival”, somehow at the same time retain a desire to go against this beneficial drive.You need to clarify your muddle.And we’re to believe that the reasoning of the minds developed by this process is correct?
Why are you changing the subject instead of answering the question? Your attempts to avoid answering are blindingly obvious.lol... learn what an "absurdly analogous argument" is and leave the adults alone for a while. You're not very bright.
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.