Replies

Using your logic....how did you even post that, understand it, let alone expect anyone else to?

I mean it’s just a jumbled unitelligible barrage of markings crammed together.

BTW...proof is nothing more than what is in the eye of the beholder.

PROOF isn’t something science can always attain on many fronts.

There’s no way to scientifically prove John Edwards loves his wife.

You can say your parents love you, but there’s no scientific way to prove that either.

Much of science particularly what scientists call science, is mere opinion.

Scientists are not infallible, wholly objective, wholly rational beings. Just as “science” doesn’t yet have all the answers. It is but one way we collect, measure knowledge, experiences, etc.

Doctors have “opinions” about what drug is the best choice for depression.

So you could go to one doctor with exactly 20 years of expereince and trained at Harvard, and he could give you a drug for your depression he calls the best choice. For you.

Then see another doctor with 20 years of experience who also went to Harvard and gives you what he says is the best medication for you for your depression.

Both could have dozens of colleagues, with pages of data supporting their positions and we’re just told there’s ongoing tests, case studies and so forth. It seems as if it’s perpetually open ended.

AND YET they’ll make these claims...MY drug is the better choice (even if only for now) and go so far as to denegrate the other MD, claim he wasn’t using the proper scientific method to come to his junk-science conclusions, etc. etc. etc.

People anally “demanding proof” of ID or creationism or God would be much better served by seeking this standard from the REAL threat to science by the likes of one algore; who asserts far more bizarre notions than: there are forces in the universe smarter than scientists and that things didn’t just...somehow appear with zero intelligence behind them!

algore said the hot air cult debate is over...speaking of intelligence!

GOD the irony!!!!

Matchett-PI: “There are only two choices (religions).”

hunter112: “Do I need to direct you to a website to show you that there are myriad religions invented by the mind of man? ..

All the worlds religions can be boiled down into two religions: [1]God is God [2] Man is god.

You’re merely talking about the myriad philosophies (as many as there are men to hold them) that make up catagory [2].

hunter112: “As an atheist, I think they all were...”

I agree - including atheism. “A confession of atheism is simply an honest confession of ignorance of any realities that transcend the human ego, nothing more, nothing less. And why argue with a man who not only clings to ignorance, but is proud of the fact?

“..For reason is only a faculty of knowing something indirectly in the absence of direct vision, while God is known directly, the same way one knows one is alive, perceives reality, or is aware of free will. In order to see something, it is not necessary to logically prove the existence of sight. Many of the most important truths are known simply by their “superabundance of clarity,” by pure intellect, not by the reason which is its servant. Reason is not Intelligence in itself, only an instrument of intelligence. Few things create more mischief than reason in the hands of an unintelligent or immoral wonker. .[..]Not for nothing did Richard Weaver say that “every attack upon religion is inevitably an attack upon mind.” Naturally there are many forms of stupid religion, for there is nothing touched by humans wonkers that cannot be made stupid. But at least religion as such does not exclude the possibility and priority of Intelligence, and therefore, Truth. ...” ~ Gagdad Bob
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=319#319

The most profitable way to deal with vulgar minds like Dawkins, et.al.: “..The Dawkinses have always been with us. Five years from now they will be replaced by some new fad that feeds on death. ..”
http://thomism.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/the-comment-that-turned-into-a-post/

hunter112: “Nobody’s been able to 1) prove intelligent design and 2) connect it to their sect in any convincing way.”

I agree. It’s like someone trying to detect “mind”.
How Blind Lizards Make Nonsense of Darwinist Claims
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8580258&postID=3909965284566933849

Here’s more:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=100#100
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=117#117
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=237#237
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2038869/posts?page=314#314

etc....

“Evolution might or might not be able to account for the complexity of our brains, per se, but it’s mute and powerless to “explain” the higher products of our brains, which are of course by far the most complex objects yet known to us anywhere in the universe. Many agnostic and atheist philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists have stated this much in frank terms.

Our ability to do higher mathematics, for example, was utterly irrelevant to our survival in evolutionary termsour ancestors needed to know absolutely nothing about topology or fractals, manifolds or tensors, even differential calculus, in order to outwit mammoths and saber-tooth tigers. Nor did they need to know the profoundly shocking fact (from the point of view of naturalism) that mathematics of the kinds just mentioned is incredibly powerful for understanding the external worlda fact that just cries out for a deeper explanation. Pinker, Dawkins, Dennett and company are flying into the face of the facts on this one.

We can not only do mathematics, but our mathematics actually matches the subtlest details of the external world.

How does this make any sense at all, if we aren’t in a very real sense created in the image of God, the divine mathematician (as Kepler, Galileo, and Copernicus regarded God) who also created the external world?”

~ Ted Davis 3/24/08 Professor of the History of Science Web page: http://home.messiah.edu/~tdavis/

bttt