Posted on 02/03/2003 3:53:13 AM PST by kattracks
Yes... but anyone who is attempting to enlighten another should find ways to help them sharpen their arguments. That's the best way for them to find the holes in them. Not always easy to do however... and not many people on either side are open to it.
I've always understood that evolution, although the odds are astronomical, given enough time and *given* life being in existence already, is possible.
The problem I have is that life is not self-existent. Intellect/personality/spirit may be... but not physical life. And evolution doesn't explain that any more scientifically than creationism does.
Who's trying to make the Bible scientific dogma? There are those who look at scientific discoveries to support Biblical accounts. That's all. And mostly that is done in response to evolutionists demanding proof that the Bible is a reliable account before they will believe anything about it.
I would. It shows the different personalities/intended audiences of the writers. Inspiration does not equal "channeling."
Do not put words in my mouth. I have never said that scientific = atheist. I have said that evolution is not science, it is bunk, it is pseudo-science, it is rhetoric, but it is not science. And yes evolution is both materialistic and atheistic - science is not. Evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with atheism - as this 'professor' Dini abundantly shows.
And it is not relevant because evolution is not science no matter how many times evolutionists repeat that mantra.
No, the man is not being a jackass, he is abusing his power. He has not been appointed God, he is just a teacher, there to teach students a subject. He is a very bad teacher because he is an ideologue atheist. He is a very bad scientist because he has a completely closed mind. As I have said before he does not belong in front of a class.
Only for the most simple cells. Additional functionallity can evolve for single celled organisms just as for higher forms.
It is an unanswered question. The answers available are faith or guesswork and are presented as such (I recall these discussions from Jr Highschool, arguements got heated). Once the science of evolving life forms is taught and understood you get back to were life started. It is appropriate to discuss philosophy with the kids including God at this point. Just not specific beliefs about God. If you want to teach the Christian creation myth you should also teach the Norse creation myth (Loki drank with Oden, earth is Odens puke, the land is chunks).
You certainly cannot speak for yourself on the subject. Why do you and other atheists fight so hard over a theory????? I do not see any fights here over relativity, over gravity, or over hundreds of other theories out there. No the only one that gathers heated debate from atheists is the theory of evolution. Why is that? The only one that splits the debate amongst the religious and the atheists is the theory of evolution - why is that?
For a very simple reason - evolution is purposely atheistic:
Now a third one of Darwin's great contributions was that he replaced theological, or supernatural, science with secular science. Laplace, of course, had already done this some 50 years earlier when he explained the whole world to Napoleon. After his explanation, Napoleon replied, "where is God in your theory?" And Laplace answered, "I don't need that hypothesis." Darwin's explanation that all things have a natural cause made the belief in a creatively superior mind quite unnecessary. He created a secular world, more so than anyone before him. Certainly many forces were verging in that same direction, but Darwin's work was the crashing arrival of this idea and from that point on, the secular viewpoint of the world became virtually universal.
Ernst Mayr - What Evolution Is - Edge Magazine 10/31/01
'according to the press'. Well, I think that is more than enough evidence that he is an atheist then! Has anyone ever seen him going to Church? (before the suit was filed). Clearly, the same folk that covered up for Clinton are making up stuff for this weasel.
For a novel, yes. For a scientific paper, No!
Yeah! Shut up and let Gore do the talking for both of you!
Sheesh... ;)
Not to mention that he NEVER took the course, which is a prerequisite to getting a recommendation!
This case isn't just "not ripe" it isn't even fertilized, except by the bombast issed by the Legal foundation that is handling the student's case. No doubt they will now be able to make great hay out of all the free publicity surrounding this stunt in their future fund raising letters......
Pop quiz: A __________ and his __________ soon are parted ;)
More garbage from TalkOrigins, the fountain of scientific disinformation. Since you claim to be so smart (although the only thing I see from you is TO links and placemarkers), perhaps you can tell us how the following species evolved their unique functions:
Yes, that is a fact. There is nothing in the Christian religion that forbids anyone from giving antibiotics. You are just showing your atheism with garbage excuses. Why don't you and your friends give proof of the garbage you keep repeating that evolution is science? What are these obvious facts that make it impossible for someone to be a doctor unless he kneels before the church of your maggot infested hero?
1) If the two observers were working together, they would resolve the different observations before publication.
2) If they were not working together, they would independently publish their findings and the scientific community would debate the issues including the differences.
3) In either of the 1st two cases the observations should be testable and repeatable to validate the observation.
The Bible is not scientific.
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.