Skip to comments.
'Intelligent design' theory threatens science classrooms
Seattle Post Intelligencer ^
| 11/22/2002
| ALAN I. LESHNER
Posted on 06/22/2003 5:29:39 PM PDT by Aric2000
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180, 1,181-1,200, 1,201-1,219 last
To: PatrickHenry
1201?
An I-was-on-vacation-and-missed-the-whole- thread bump.
To: Aric2000
Until science can prove the existence of nothing, then all science can be used to equally prove what would appear as opposites in the same conclusion. Science has proven that all creation has a creator. Until they prove otherwise, they will continue down the eternal road of trying to prove a negative: that God does not exist. What they will find, however, if the eternities give them sufficient time to discover it, is the surface area of a toenail of what us religionists respectfully phrase as and bow to is the very feet of GOD.
O the irony of scientists studying the creations with the determination to show that God does not exist
As compared to the religionist who studies the very character of the Creator of all this.
To: Arrowhead
Are you really this way? Or do you just play this on the internet?
Science can NEITHER PROVE NOR DISPROVE the existence of god, therefore science CANNOT use god as a causation.
What? The fact that the sun is the center of the solar system, somehow disproves the existence of god?
The discovery of DNA somehow disproves the existence of god? The discovery of transitional fossils somehow disproves the existence of god?
Get a clue, science does NOT USE god, because it cannot prove nore disprove the existence of god.
Get over yourself already.
1,203
posted on
06/29/2003 7:12:41 PM PDT
by
Aric2000
(If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
To: Aric2000
Well, DUUUUHHHH. Of course science does not "use god." How can it use something that it does not believe in? Better question: How can it use something that it tries to disprove?
If you are anything of a scientist (probably a wanna-be), then you should be able to understand the SIMPLE logic purported here.
Do not pretend that you do not know that scientists conclusions that no God exists until it can be proven is not behind a motivating design in their discovery? If you deny this, then you are just plain stupid and not worth my time debating.
But, just to settle this crazy dialogue once and for all: God exists because I have seen him. While yeh-whos like yourself thrive on the empirical being based on what you see, smell, etc., then perhaps you could find a small place in that small heart of yours to believe me. But, hey, what do I know? I am only one in thousands who have seen Deity. Yet if he cannot be place flat out on a piece of glass underneath a microscope, then you absolutely refuse to believe it. Well, tough titty said the kitty, but your mind is just too sour. tah tah
Arrowhead-------know-it-all-scientists--->
To: Arrowhead; Aric2000
Do not pretend that you do not know that scientists conclusions that no God exists until it can be proven is not behind a motivating design in their discovery? If you deny this, then you are just plain stupid and not worth my time debating. This is simply not true. Science and most scientists do not involve a creator one way or the other in their research. Science is science and faith is faith. I have yet to meet a scientist who set out to conclude God did not exist. In fact, if that was the case, I would consider him/her a dishonest scientist.
To: RadioAstronomer
honest placemarker
To: RadioAstronomer
Another Honest Placemarker
1,207
posted on
07/03/2003 8:27:06 AM PDT
by
Aric2000
(If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
To: RadioAstronomer
a dishonest scientist. uri geller honesty placemakers aren't they ?
Kiting - bending - spinning science ... minds of adults and little children --- websites too !
1,208
posted on
07/03/2003 1:04:50 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(( Shock -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... AWE --- you haven't seen anything - yet ))
To: Aric2000
ID may not be all one way. Not all who consider some form of ID are one way.
I say it is the way & evolution is the design-the end product, the highest tool. It's God's casino & he sets the rules-he knows how many times the dice will roll boxcars & 7's, by the laws of physics. If one controls physics, one controls the whole show. The casino opened with the Big Bang. We may never have much more in the way of clues.
I say there is no conflict between theology & science.
To: js1138
To: Aric2000; js1138
Another Honest Placemarker:-)
LOL double post hehehe
To: GatekeeperBookman
Welcome to the club, too bad more of us do not feel that way.
Because an awful lot of us believe just as you do, but many others just cannot handle that. And because we do NOT believe EXACTLY as they do, we are atheists, and will rot in eternal fire forever.
It is a sad, sad thing.
1,212
posted on
07/03/2003 8:47:16 PM PDT
by
Aric2000
(If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
To: RadioAstronomer
Good evening RA, how are you doing?
Have you seen the other thread that I pinged you to?
Pretty cool stuff!!
1,213
posted on
07/03/2003 8:47:58 PM PDT
by
Aric2000
(If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
To: Aric2000
Good evening RA, how are you doing? Doing well but have been terribly busy the past few days. I have not even caught up with the thread that featured me (freepers finest on tuesday) yet. Indeed I seen the pings and am getting there now. :-)
To: Aric2000
I am equally appalled with the 'scientists' who would deny God. They are, for me, the larger fools.
To: GatekeeperBookman
deny god?
I don't understand what you mean.
Most scientists are theists, they believe in god.
Scientists cannot use god as a causation in their work.
Scientists can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god. therefore god cannot be used in science.
As a personal belief? Many do believe in god, but they do not deny god by not using god in science, because if they did, it would not be science, it would be religion.
1,216
posted on
07/04/2003 8:34:02 AM PDT
by
Aric2000
(If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance god)
To: Aric2000
I do not mean you ( sir or madame ) & I do not mean that God should be presented as any causation in an experimental model. I mean that I have seen people quoted who declare all too hapily that they have no personal belief in any God. I mean scientists who make this observation, are the ones who I would expect to confirm God.
To: GatekeeperBookman
Science beyond evolution is too complicated for dope heads (( over-indulgence )) to figure out ...
prayer --- deliverance is the only solution !
1,218
posted on
07/05/2003 1:57:25 AM PDT
by
f.Christian
(( Shock -- revelations (( designed universe )) ... AWE --- you haven't seen anything - yet ))
To: f.Christian
Prayer leads to a clear understanding of oneself, one's place in the larger order, & thus, gives a hint of the magnitude of the the work of God. We may see only a hint-but that is sufficient. This can be true even for the children of the Material Age-if they only try, it can show them order, give them self-discipline & a new perspective.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,141-1,160, 1,161-1,180, 1,181-1,200, 1,201-1,219 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