Skip to comments.
What Is Science?
AiG ^
| Roger Patterson
Posted on 02/19/2009 9:24:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 401-408 next last
To: metmom
To: ColdWater
I see you have reading comprehension issues as well.
I answered your questions. Too bad you can’t comprehend them.
242
posted on
02/19/2009 9:38:02 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: ColdWater
There’s a difference between presenting both sides and bashing conservatism.
You really could use a clue.
243
posted on
02/19/2009 9:38:52 PM PST
by
tpanther
(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
To: ColdWater
Nope. No answer to that question. As usual, only an answer to something I never asked.
244
posted on
02/19/2009 9:39:40 PM PST
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: tpanther
Government spending on science is not the same thing as science.
I need not defend government spending to defend science.
The only work I ever did for the Government was as an Airman not as a scientist.
245
posted on
02/19/2009 9:39:44 PM PST
by
allmendream
("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
To: ColdWater
What religious classes are taught in public schools in your area?
This I’d like to see!
246
posted on
02/19/2009 9:41:34 PM PST
by
tpanther
(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
To: ColdWater
247
posted on
02/19/2009 9:42:44 PM PST
by
tpanther
(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
To: Buck W.
Nope, following the teachings of Christ isn’t it Buck.
And come to think of it Buck, Christ I think would rejoice in people that might be seen as annoying if it meant to the point that people actually understood what Christianity is!
I found the whole process somewhat annoying and even to a point quite disturbing before I was saved myself.
248
posted on
02/19/2009 9:46:36 PM PST
by
tpanther
(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
To: allmendream; metmom
Ummmm...not even close to the question asked allmendream...not that a soul is shocked!
Again.
The question was why is there such a lack of lawsuits to silence the mutiverse theorists...
the string theorists....
the scientists studying the outcomes of prayer...
the pseudo-scientists asserting mand made global warming...
While there are myriad lawsuits to silence creationists?
249
posted on
02/19/2009 9:53:00 PM PST
by
tpanther
(The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
To: metmom
[[only an answer to something I never asked.]]
Ah- but were you htinking it? That is the real quesiton
250
posted on
02/19/2009 10:50:21 PM PST
by
CottShop
(Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
To: tpanther
What lawsuits to “silence” Creationists? I hear this garbage all the time. Creationists never seem to shut up, so who the heck is suing them to silence? What cases are you talking about tpanter, the ones the voices tell you about? The same voices that whisper “ACLU, NEA, liberal strawman”?
251
posted on
02/19/2009 10:54:36 PM PST
by
allmendream
("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
To: count-your-change
Darwinism in the schools is like I remember grits in the cafes in Georgia. Darwinism should not be taught in schools. One reason is this: natural selection presupposes the truth of the Malthus population principle. So, when your kids emerge from state-enforced Darwinism brainwashing, they are firm believers in Malthusianism, whether they are aware of it or not. And, as you know, this is indeed a damnable and pernicious doctrine. There is no way it could ever be taught to public-school students except clandestinely, disguised and buried as part of the "biology" curriculum, without parents knowing it. But Malthus is part of the deal and that's what the students ingest when they are fed natural selection.
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
As I’ve said before, evo-atheists want us to believe that most organisms that are born die before they reproduce, a la Malthus. What a damnable doctrine indeed. Anybody can see that God would be a cruel and vicious God if He allowed that kind of carnage to exist in His Creation. Nature is not “red in tooth and claw”.
The evo-atheists want us to accept Malthus because they want to be the ones to “cull the human herd” to stop the imaginary geometric growth that Malthus said would happen if reproduction were to be unchecked. They want to be the un-natural selectors of death for those they deem “unfit”
To: tpanther
[Darwin would] be more amazed I think that because certain animals share similar DNA, people are gullible enough to believe this can only mean they share a common ancestor based on sheer conjecture and nothing more.
Perhaps. But then he's delve into the mountains of other evidence that was discovered before DNA analysis and match it all up and would be quite proud of his theory.
It's crystal clear to people that aren't caught up in the God-hating cult that's clearly hijacked the theory now taught as fact by secualar humanist liberals.
... And Christian conservatives and Jews and scientists of all stripes and flavors.
you take money from Christians to pay for your failed godless debacles after running them off.
Whatever you say.
To: GodGunsGuts
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
Dr. Todd has it right.
The intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.
If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.
The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.
It's scientific to say that one should make sure that one's instruments should provide accurate measurements. But it's not scientific to say that nothing exists except that which is, at least in principle and via instrumentation, open to observation by our senses. It's scientific to say that effects have causes. It's not scientific to say that effects can have only materialist causes.
Thus, if it is true that there exists a reality that is ontologically discontinuous from our reality but which is able, at will, to interact with it and to effect changes in it, the naturalist has put himself into a position of being unable to make an accurate assessment of cause and effect. He has done this because he has, from the beginning, simply declared certain possibilities not to exist. He doesn't do this upon a scientific basis, but upon a philosophical one.
255
posted on
02/20/2009 5:37:48 AM PST
by
aruanan
To: tpanther
“Nope, following the teachings of Christ isnt it Buck.”
Do me a favor then—go to AiG or one of the other first-to-react echo-chamber sites and tell me what the definition-du-jour of Christianity is. I mean, surely they have a new spin based on whatever the vogue scientific objection to creationism happens to be.
It’s incredible that to creationists the definition of Christianity has to be reduced to a set of crisis-sensitive talking points.
256
posted on
02/20/2009 6:16:31 AM PST
by
Buck W.
(The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
To: tpanther
“Nope, following the teachings of Christ isnt it Buck.”
Do me a favor then—go to AiG or one of the other first-to-react echo-chamber sites and tell me what the definition-du-jour of Christianity is. I mean, surely they have a new spin based on whatever the vogue scientific objection to creationism happens to be.
It’s incredible that to creationists the definition of Christianity has to be reduced to a set of crisis-sensitive talking points.
257
posted on
02/20/2009 6:16:32 AM PST
by
Buck W.
(The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
To: metmom
“If you think that theres no difference between a lie and an allegory and you believe that the Bible is an allegory, what exactly do you believe?”
I do so enjoy the “komodo dragon” argument approach that creationints take. What’s the komodo dragon approach, you ask? Well, here’s a hint for you to start you research: I’m Bob and you’re Ray. Now, go to YouTube.
258
posted on
02/20/2009 6:19:27 AM PST
by
Buck W.
(The President of the United States IS named Schickelgruber...)
To: Ethan Clive Osgoode
That Malthus population principle is at the heart of the environmental/deep ecology movement also. A doctrine of “reduce the population by some means because there will never be enough for all.”
And as you say, pernicious because it seems logical. Draw a graph with lines showing this and such, all very reasonable looking and wrong.
259
posted on
02/20/2009 6:20:48 AM PST
by
count-your-change
(You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
To: count-your-change; ToGodBeTheGlory
A doctrine of reduce the population by some means because there will never be enough for all. Malthus's theories have been modified or adapted in various ways by neo-malthusians and communists. But Malthus's original full-strength theory is the insanest of all, and it is that theory which Darwin relies on for natural selection to work. You see, Malthus believed that populations are not just tending toward their maximum level of sustinence. The geometric growth is such that populations are always at their maximum level of sustinence, and, as a consequence, they are plunged into inescapable vice and misery when they go beyond it. Right now the paupers are beyond their maximum level of sustinence and that's why they are miserable and vice-ridden. Any more babies they have incurrs more punishment of this natural law that doles out more misery and vice to them. This isn't a catastrophe to happen in the future. It is supposed to be happening now and always. The purpose of his theory was to explain why the rich class existed alongside a huge class of miserable vice-ridden paupers in England, and what to do about it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280 ... 401-408 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