Posted on 09/25/2009 8:34:35 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Just think about what they are saying. Peer reviewed published science is mostly wrong...and yet the evos take Creationists and IDers to task based on that very same published science...LOL!
That's curious because the NEA secular humanist types have hijacked the "real argument" via the courts to ensure it never takes place in the first place.
I'd frankly love to see that very discussion take place, from k-12 on up!
Ohhhhh-kay.
I only hold that science is a creation of God and that to reject it out of hand because of a literalist interpretation of Scripture is to reject the omnipotence of God.
I agree that science is part of God's creation (see my tagline), but you go off the rails when you exclaim people reject science based on their interpretation of scripture.
Is that anything like each and every examination of evolution is always a "religious attack on science"?
Please explain how people that question evolution and happen to believe the veracity of scripture are therefore rejecting the omnipotence of God?
So how does this line of reasoning work when people demanding He be excluded say from the science classroom regarding His omnipresence? Wouldn't they be rejecting His omnipresence if they demand He be excluded from the science classroom?
Thanks for the links!
When owl Gore said that the Scientific argument was over
It was interesting how few people realized that one statement essentially admitted AGW wasn’t about science.
Intersting...and how about the people that understand the liberal parallels when Chrissy Fit Matthews spewed spittle all over the camera during his rant towards his Republican guest about evolution being “settled science”?
Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!
drive-by liberalism on shameless display, nothing to see here!
I will not attempt to defend the indefensible. I can only say that I everyone of my classroom and lab experiences left me with an even greater understanding and appreciation of the perfection and precision of His creation.
Fair enough.
I can only say that I everyone of my classroom and lab experiences left me with an even greater understanding and appreciation of the perfection and precision of His creation.
Same here!
That would make you a creationist. Welcome to the party.
BTW did you ever try to publish your conclusions in a scientific paper?
One moron TV talking head vs. the leader of the movement behind Global Warming. Not quite the same thing.
LOL! Riiiiight.
EXACTLY the same thing...two liberals dictating to the unwashed masses that the “debate is over” and science is settled”.
Well if the Global Warming hysteria and Second Hand Smoke hysteria is based on "Science", then maybe Intelligent design proponents should be glad that these idiots are not putting their theories in the same category as the frauds that the Global Warming quacks are perpetuating.
I don't see you guys complaining that Global Warming theories and second hand smoke theories are NOT SCIENCE. Those guys all get published in peer review articles and they get praised by evolutionists and other secular scientists for the BS that they publish, yet they scoff at anyone who suggests that life forms on this planet cannot be explained based on current natural laws and that they may therefore be the result of some supernatural intervention [which is kind of an obvious conclusion].
Great points P-Marlowe, thanks!
Can you articulate exactly how it needs to be changed to do that?
So, we can assume that as long as creationists quote complete sentences the evos can never claim out-of-context quoting ever again? That's great news!
"I assumed it represented a complete thought--they usually do. The rest of your paragraph explains why you think the scientific process is a logical fallacy, but it hardly misrepresents you to quote the sentence where you say that you do."
Which is why I reposted the rest of the idea for context. So that you couldn't misrepresent my point.
"Is there an actual argument in there somewhere? All I see is a series of assertions. Critical thinking is more than the ability to recite a list of logical fallacies--as one of the sites I read put it, there's a difference between logic and reason."
Yes, the argument is that this is simply your inability to understand the ramifications of the scientific process being based on a logical fallacy. You lack the critical-thinking skills to understand that all of your beliefs are therefore based in logical fallacy and though you think it allows you to 'no longer care', the fact of the matter is that you should care very much.
"You can cling to your puny "it's a fallacy!" objections, I'll go with something that's been shown to work."
Which is the logical fallacy of composition, i.e., assuming that something that is true for a part is true of the whole. Evos always assume that since applying the philosophical assumption of naturalism works for technical experiments (e.g., chemistry), that is also works for imaginary scenarios based on mental extrapolations (e.g., evolution, big bang, etc).
Just another way the naturalists deceive themselves with fallacious thinking.
Wow, I can't believe that there are people who are so uninformed as not to realize that geocentrism and geokineticism are equivalent models under GR; as testified to by the creator of GR and other eminent scientists.
I must assume that you also believe that garbage dumps spontaneously generate rats and animal carcasses spontaneously generate maggots? Wow.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.);
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
Did you read it?
Do you accept the premise that there may be something supernatural that cannot be measured or observed which may explain much of what can be measured and observed?
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.