Posted on 02/19/2009 9:24:24 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
What Is Science?
"Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic."
—Dr. Scott Todd, Kansas State University, Nature 401(6752):423, Sept. 30, 1999
What You Will Learn
Many people do not realize that science was actually developed in Christian Europe by men who assumed that God created an orderly universe. If the universe is a product of random chance or a group of gods that interfere in the universe, there is really no reason to expect order in nature. Many of the founders of the principle scientific fields, such as Bacon, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton, were believers in a recently created earth. The idea that science cannot accept a creationist perspective is a denial of scientific history...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
I probably should read at least one other post in this thread before I weigh in. However, I am not famous for my abundance of discretion.
The biggest thing that the TOE has going for it these days is the evidence found in mitochondrial DNA!
So we all share DNA and we all have common ancestors. I never had to read an Evolution Book to learn that.
The absence of physical evidence sustaining the notion that one critter grew into another is actually revealing. Academic square-heads still tend to run around the world proselytizing dumb hicks (like me) that something came from nothing and that any thought contrary to that must indicate a need for more education.
Darwin's 5 year voyage around the world on the Beaver sure seems to have involved a lot of wasted time. How much of that 5 years was actually spent watching some finches on the Galapagos? Think about it!
It is all BS, but gosh, I can't say BS out loud here on FR.com.
That is not enough for the proponents of a logically flawed "Science" that is in all but acknowledgment a secular religion. That is a religion that has no God.
I wish that it weren't bedtime already.
The best way to deal with an arrogant scientist is to prove him wrong. Where’s that YEC proof?
Quoting Adam:
"This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;"
My bolding.
“If you don’t have an answer say so statement about an earlier post is not an answer.”
Particularly so since I had not spoken to him at all.
Who sets your bedtime?
“Christianity is not defined by Genesis.”
I’ll give you that I guess. The majority of Christians just don’t believe in parts of the bible that have been exposed as false.
Its certainly more rational the literalism, but they can never explain why they believe the rest of it.
Though I do find it funny that most people who consider themselves bible literalists think catholics are crazy for taking the last supper story literally about the body and blood.
Christianity is funny from the outside looking in.
Not near as much time as Adam wasted trying out all the animals for suitability as companions before God figured out he needed a woman.
Its not your question so you have no right to demand an answer from me and then decide which answers I’ve given to SOMEONE ELSE are acceptable.
You want to ask a question, do so, but do not tell me how to answer another person’s question.
It called “manners”.
Are you saying that he lied about that when He did it?
Buck I would like to hear a real answer to this question. Also what is your definition of a Christian
Say what? Answers to your questions are readily available to you online. You have much to learn regarding the process of getting a real paper published in a real journal.
Thanks for once again displaying you're unable to adequately explain your untenable positions, aptly named whattajoke.
Why do creationists confuse (or deliberately misrepresent) “lie” and “allegory”? Did Jesus lie when he used parables?
Five years on the beaver might explain Darwin's lifelong frail health. He was just wore out.
I wanted the answer from you to that question. I said if you don't want to answer then say so and I would not be beckoning you for a response.
Can you answer the questions?
The Bible doesn't say how but obviously Adam found a something lacking in the animals.
I will make him a helper fit for [5] him.” 19 Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed [6] every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam [7] there was not found a helper fit for him.
Citation please.
This is another example of evos demanding the impossible by setting up conditions that they know no one can meet and then deriding those who can't meet them for their failure.
Talk about intellectually dishonest.
Yup...and isn't it funny these scientists that aren't "real" attend or teach or graduated from MIT, Johns Hopkins, Princeton? One really wonders if whattajoke thinks these are "real" institutions of higher learning.
Frankly, I wouldn't call it intellectual dishonesty so much as honestly devoid of intellect.
No doubt referring to Dover.
Questions to Buck W. that have as of yet been unanswered....
Post 94: Sources? Or are we just to take your word for it as fact?
Post 95: All? Sources? Or are we to just take your word for it as fact?
Sources? Or are we to just take your word for it as fact?
You’re pretty liberal with the blanket statements. Want to back them up sometime? Or just stereotype everyone?
Post 109: Which church?
All people? Everywhere?
You know that to be a fact?
No sources provided as of yet for any of the statements made.
I know what happens to creationists who don’t provide sources and it isn’t pretty. But evos are know for double standards. They don’t seem to think that the requirements they demand of others, they need to meet themselves.
Really, and when did that happen? How is it that scientists determined the center of that which has no borders? Conclusively.
Your bolding alright.
I just checked out about a dozen English translations of that verse and cannot figure out where you came up with that one.
That’s not all the animals on the planet.
I asked,
“The question on literalness is another one by its self. So why should I have not responded with Biblical references?”.
And your question is?
” They aren’t just satisfied with opting their kids out of the creation section of origins in schools, they have to sue the schools into submission to have evolution only taught. “
Public schools can’t teach your religion it is illegal. And you don’t want them to since then school would have to present both sides, and trust me you don’t want them proving the bible is full of lies in school. Take your kid to church if you want them to learn your mythology.
Anything that doesn't tow the hardline evo position is by default dismissed as not *real* science and not even given any consideration.
This is another example of evos demanding the impossible by setting up conditions that they know no one can meet and then deriding those who can't meet them for their failure.
Talk about intellectually dishonest.
Yup...and isn't it funny these scientists that aren't "real" attend or teach or graduated from MIT, Johns Hopkins, Princeton? One really wonders if whattajoke thinks these are "real" institutions of higher learning.
Frankly, I wouldn't call it intellectual dishonesty so much as honestly devoid of intellect.
Are you REALLY looking for sources that geocentrism was a belief enforced by the church 500+ years ago? REALLY? Denial of science is bad enough, but denial of relatively recent history is delicious desperation.
Now, for your homework, look up Galileo and his forced confession in 1615 (or thereabouts) in which he saved his own life by concurring with scripture-derived geocentrism.
All the lawsuits filed to force creation out of the schools.
We can ask a question here and any evo who wants can answer it.
“Would you support the opt out option for students in the public schools in regards to teaching creation instead of an outright ban on teaching creation in science classes? One that would allow creation to be taught along with evolution but not requiring that children attend?”
I'd also suggest that as someone who's been here less than a month, it would be a good idea not to start bomb-throwing too early.
That is not what he said. He said the earth is not at the center. That has been determined.
I haven't seen one yet. Please inform me a one. Thanks.
“How is it that scientists determined the center of that which has no borders? Conclusively. “
Let me understand this—are you arguing in support of geocentrism? I’m giving you an opportunity to respond with a simple “no”.
Curious, Buck. Where is the center of the universe then?
How far are the edges from us in the different directions?
If we’re not in the center, then we must be closer to one edge than the other. How far away is the closest edge and how far away is the furthest edge?
You do know that geocentrism and heliocentrism refer to the entity that we call the “solar system” and not the universe as a whole, right?
The public school system for centuries started each day with Bible reading and prayer and taught creation. It was not considered the establishment of religion, nor the teaching of it, nor was it considered illegal.
I don’t want my kids taught your atheistic, nature worshiping mythology either. You want to teach your kids that there’s no God and that they’re just a bunch of animals, teach them on your own.
What lies is the Bible full of and how can you demonstrate that they are lies?
Quick! Tell the Modesto school district. They REQUIRE every 9th grader to pass a course on religion.
evos dont answer questions. They only create strawmen, distort, project and attempt to re-define the playing field
Buck's been asked this before. Buck has absolutely no idea what he's talking about on pretty much any subject.
He'd be more amazed I think that because certain animals share similar DNA, people are gullible enough to believe this can only mean they share a common ancestor based on sheer conjecture and nothing more.
I'm unclear as to why you place "theory" in quoatation marks.
It's crystal clear to people that aren't caught up in the God-hating cult that's clearly hijacked the theory now taught as fact by secualar humanist liberals.
Regardless, I can think of no other theory that is constantly attacked by shameful Christians (and Muslims, for that matter) who are so insecure in their faith they think a branch of science will somehow disprove their beliefs... Even though it does no such thing.
No other "theory" has been hijacked by cultists projecting their insecurities in this way you just displayed. As if that's not shameful enough, you take money from Christians to pay for your failed godless debacles after running them off. THAT would be the very definition of shameful. Along with cowardly and weak. So called science theory as taught only by the threat of lawsuits."Real" science in the liberal world, where up is down and down is up.
I support having religious classes as religious classes, not teaching religion in science classes.
As for creationists’ lack of tolerance. HA!! We just want equal time for our money. You force us to pay for teaching we find ridiculous so we try to get an alternative taught, since we’re paying for the classrooms. We even offer to have it taught at our expense. We get pushed out of the classrooms by government orders and told our position isn’t science while the evidence that our position is indeed science isn’t allowed to be heard. Then when we defend our position we’re told we’re intolerant.
A-freaking-mazing!!
Not to mention, Christians pay for their failed godless liberal debacles long after we’ve left!
Dude, can you answer my questions?
Interesting. My tax money goes to pay for religious classes in public schools and NOT once have I ever called for removing them from the school system. Probably 100's times more money than goes for teaching evolution in the public school system. I think you should rethink your position.
Science is the single most productive means humanity has ever come across for gaining useful information about the physical universe.
Science is based upon the systematic gathering of data on measurable and replicable natural phenomena, and attempts to explain and predict these data by appeal to measurable and replicable natural causes in the formation of a scientific hypothesis.
If the evidence supports the hypothesis, and your hypothesis is found to be USEFUL in predicting and explaining natural phenomena, then it may one day be regarded as a theory.
A theory is the highest rank of scientific explanation, making the construction “just a theory” the domain of tools and fools.
Nice, and I guess everyone is to ignore multiverse theory, string theory, the fact that scientists study the effects of prayer...
what a hoot!
Which one did he miss?
Darwinism in the schools is like I remember grits in the cafes in Georgia. You could take it or leave it but you ain't gonna get a plate of food without it. And no subs on the menu either!
“Buck has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about on pretty much any subject.”
Thank you! I’m in your head! I may use that as my tagline if I decide to change from FT.
And what are the findings of those studies?
LOL....ever notice the liberals have these apt handles they use, making them stick out like sore thumbs?
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.