Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A War Between Science and Religon? Ask Isaac Newton(a Scientist Guided by religious fervor)
AOL News ^ | 06/19/2007 | Dinesh D' Souza

Posted on 06/20/2007 9:05:55 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 last
To: MacDorcha
I don’t have a clue where or when you decided to latch on to me, but after the kinds of days I’ve just had (espcially considering we both historically have agreed on these posts) I would like it for you to quit playing 4 year oold “Why? Why? Why?”

I can't imagine how you came to believe I usually agree with you.

You have made a rather sweeping and factually incorrect statement about the limits of variation. I recommend doing some reading about directed evolution in the laboratory.

141 posted on 06/21/2007 6:26:09 PM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Darwin’s book is should have been named “Origin of Genus”, for that is the real debate here.

Why is that a different debate?

Do you not know the difference?

Evo's routinely offer examples of speciation as proof of Genus creation. To wit, for all of the discussion of the mutation/natural selection/evolution of bacteria, E.coli is still E.coli after all of the experiments.

142 posted on 06/21/2007 8:13:13 PM PDT by jimmyray
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray

The evidence for common descent is vast and involves dozens of lines of evidence. Even young earth creationists admit that variation can produce change up to the Family level. Check out baraminology.

But I am still asking how the concept of species applies to bacteria. Such organisms routinely exchange DNA in processes that resemble sex. These exchanges are not bound by any easy rules of type or kind.


143 posted on 06/22/2007 5:42:28 AM PDT by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Wombat101
Then again, my agnostic streak says the Apocalypse is all BS anyway, so, perhpas it’s not so surprising at all.

You understand the threat of the Islamic extremists, but you don't seem to connect it to the Bible, strange indeed, you seem very analytical. Get a good commentary on Genesis, and Revelation.

The Immortal Jews (Mark Twain)

If the statistics are right, the Jews constitute but one per cent of the human race. It suggests a nebulous dim puff of star dust lost in the blaze of the Milky Way. Properly the Jew ought hardly to be heard of; but he is heard of, has always been heard of. He is as prominent on the planet as any other people, and his commercial importance is extravagantly out of proportion to the smallness of his bulk. His contributions to the world's list of great names in literature, science, art, music, finance, medicine, and abstruse learning are also away out of proportion to the weakness of his numbers. He has made a marvelous fight in this world, in all the ages; and has done it with his hands tied behind him. He could be vain of himself, and be excused for it. The Egyptian, the Babylonian, and the Persian rose, filled the planet with sound and splendor, then faded to dream-stuff and passed away; the Greek and the Roman followed, and made a vast noise, and they are gone; other peoples have sprung up and held their torch high for a time, but it burned out, and they sit in twilight now, or have vanished. The Jew saw them all, beat them all, and is now what he always was, exhibiting no decadence, no infirmities of age, no weakening of his parts, no slowing of his energies, no dulling of his alert and aggressive mind. All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality?

144 posted on 06/22/2007 9:56:59 AM PDT by itsahoot (The GOP did nothing about immigration, immigration did something about the GOP (As Predicted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jimmyray
Jesus, claiming to be God in the flesh, backed his claims with miracles, and with the resurrection. However, since we can't verifiably prove this either way, it requires faith.

Even if we could verify it, and we can, it requires faith. You see faith is the beginning and knowledge is added to faith. (2 Pet 1:5 ) We should not expect faith to be added to knowledge. Even Thomas, who saw Christ and believed, had to take the promise by faith. The promise cannot be seen, but is confirmed by evidence.
145 posted on 06/22/2007 10:16:31 AM PDT by Seven_0 (You cannot fool all of the people, ever!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“You understand the threat of the Islamic extremists, but you don’t seem to connect it to the Bible, strange indeed, you seem very analytical. Get a good commentary on Genesis, and Revelation.”

I also don’t connect the threat of Islamic extremism to anything written by Nostradamus, either. Yet there are folks (some of them here, even!)who will tell you that he “predicted” 9/11, too (it must be true — after all, he wrote it down, they will tell you, and since Luke, Mark, Matthew and John wrote their stuff down, ergo it’s true, too?).

Because it’s been written down makes it strictly true, and better yet, provable? If your assumption is that it must be true because otherwise no one would bother to make the effort of writing anything then I have swampland I’d like to sell you as prime, beachfront property.

Propaganda is NOT a modern invention. The idea that the written word (reproduceable, portable) helps convey a message is NOT a modern conception. It’s fairly obvious that those who wrote the Scriptures had an agenda, and naturally, what they wrote reflected what they believed and what they wanted to influence others to believe.

THAT’S why it was written down in the first place!

The idea of the Bible as “divinely inspired”, from God’s mouth to man’s ear (and pen), is a lovely little way to dodge this question of what influence the personal beliefs and intent of the writers played in what was ultimately written. The same question could be asked about the book we’re discussing; the Bible we now hold is the final result of translation from language to language, with it’s texts carefully selected, and edited, to adhere to (often) arbitrary standards of orthodoxy (which themsleves have changed over the centuries — see Henry VIII, Pelagius, Arian and Martin Luther).


146 posted on 06/22/2007 10:18:54 AM PDT by Wombat101 (Islam: Turning everything it touches to Shi'ite since 632 AD...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Hey Coyoteman, I emailed your post re: “Other Possible C14 Dating Problems” to Dr. Pitman. Dr. Pitman replied that you are right with regard to these common creationist references and stated that he has revised his site to make the fact that these are misquotes obvious.

Having said that, he went on to say that “These are not, however, the most fundamental problem with C14 dating. Although C14 is among the most useful and reliable of all the dating techniques, it still relies on several key assumptions. The same is true for tree ring dating. Why not ask Coyotemen to review some of the other mainstream arguments and references, such as those I’ve listed by Douglas J. Keenan?”

—GGG

147 posted on 06/22/2007 4:00:24 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Hey Coyoteman, I emailed your post re: “Other Possible C14 Dating Problems” to Dr. Pitman. Dr. Pitman replied that you are right with regard to these common creationist references and stated that he has revised his site to make the fact that these are misquotes obvious.

Having said that, he went on to say that “These are not, however, the most fundamental problem with C14 dating. Although C14 is among the most useful and reliable of all the dating techniques, it still relies on several key assumptions. The same is true for tree ring dating. Why not ask Coyotemen to review some of the other mainstream arguments and references, such as those I’ve listed by Douglas J. Keenan?”

It is wonderful that he is willing to correct those errors. Unfortunately, a lot of other websites still contain the same errors.

I will continue to examine the article, but I am not willing to accept that all assumptions are unjustified, nor am I willing to accept that the assumptions used are no better than wild guesses.

This seems to be a common creation "science" tactic lately -- "Your [test, theory, etc.] is based on assumptions, so its probably wrong."

Anyway, I am glad that you got those three errors off Dr. Pitman's website. I'll see how many more I can find.

148 posted on 06/22/2007 6:37:30 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==It is wonderful that he is willing to correct those errors. Unfortunately, a lot of other websites still contain the same errors.

I just checked his website. I’d say he did a little more than just correct the errors:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html


149 posted on 06/22/2007 7:05:27 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
==It is wonderful that he is willing to correct those errors. Unfortunately, a lot of other websites still contain the same errors.

I just checked his website. I’d say he did a little more than just correct the errors:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html

He should have cited the source of the corrections. Some appear to be lifted directly from my FR post to you.

Also, I note in one of his corrections he has quoted wholesale, without attribution, from the Darwin Central blog titled "A Look at Creation “Science” — Part IV."

150 posted on 06/22/2007 7:41:38 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

==He should have cited the source of the corrections. Some appear to be lifted directly from my FR post to you.

Specifics???

==Also, I note in one of his corrections he has quoted wholesale, without attribution, from the Darwin Central blog titled “A Look at Creation “Science” — Part IV.”

I was the one who sent him the Darwin Central link he is quoting from. Thus, I’m sure it’s just an oversight on Dr. Pitman’s part. After all, he knows that I sent him the link. And he also knows that the Darwin Central link contains a link that links back to him. So I highly doubt there is any foul play (if that is what you are implying)—GGG


151 posted on 06/22/2007 8:11:14 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I was the one who sent him the Darwin Central link he is quoting from. Thus, I’m sure it’s just an oversight on Dr. Pitman’s part. After all, he knows that I sent him the link. And he also knows that the Darwin Central link contains a link that links back to him. So I highly doubt there is any foul play (if that is what you are implying)

It is a matter of scholarship, not "foul play."

If you cite several paragraphs of someone else's work, you cite that work. And you cite it correctly (which Dr. Pitman did).

152 posted on 06/22/2007 8:19:11 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Like I said, I’m sure it was just an oversight. I can understand your motivations if you feel compelled to jump all over it. Having said that, I think it’s safe to say it will be fixed in short order.


153 posted on 06/22/2007 8:25:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Now that attribution has been properly given, how about answering Dr. Pitman’s article on problems/assumption re: Carbon 14 and Tree dating!


154 posted on 06/23/2007 10:30:29 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

PS I also noticed that your favorite website has strayed into another scientific controversy: AIDS. Can’t these guys get anything right? What’s next, are they going to start keeping track of Human-Caused-Global-Warming denialists too? One thing’s for sure, this just goes to show that Darwinist ideology mucks-up anything it touches.


155 posted on 06/23/2007 10:46:27 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

Newton set 2060 for end of world
The Daily Telegraph | February 22, 2003 | Jonathan Petre
Posted on 02/21/2003 8:35:31 PM EST by MadIvan
Shttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/849067/posts


156 posted on 12/23/2007 9:39:43 AM PST by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/____________________Profile updated Sunday, December 23, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Bump


157 posted on 12/23/2007 9:46:19 AM PST by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-157 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson