Skip to comments.What Is Science?
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 ...
You cannot demand a from someone to select an option when neither option is acceptable. I gave you my position in very clear words.
But as insane as Malthus’ views were and however discredited they’ve enjoyed a comfortable existence in Darwinism and as you said those accepting Darwinism are getting more than just Darwin, they’re getting Malthus too unto the point they hardly recognize it.
I mentioned the environmental/deep ecology movement because one logical conclusion of Malthus’ doctrine is that increasing the sustenance supply would actually be a waste of time and only put off the inevitable.
An increased food supply would increase population and another cycle would start, leading one to the idea that only a major decrease in population made sense.
Of course we know who would be selected to be decreased.
No doubt you'd like your version of physics taught in schools also?
Is there a creationist version of mathematics also?
Every living, reproducing thing, has the ability to produce more offspring than necessary to replace itself -- assuming nothing bad happens. The observed fact is that populations are generally stable. And in the unusual cases where populations temporarily expand without check, they invariably collapse.
Most plants and many animals produce tens of thousands of offspring. Simple arithmetic requires that most do not survive long enough to reproduce.
I've wondered for some time if you aren't a mole posing as a religious person. Certainly this post reinforces my suspicion.
Let's take a look at your line of reasoning:
What this disguises is the rather obvious syllogism:
Theodicy is a tricky business. There are reasons why most religious people do not pretend to know the mind of God and do not presume to speak for His motives and intentions.
Both of the arguments I outlined are crap. And whether you close your eyes to it or not, the Malthusian check on population is both an observable fact and an inevitable mathematical conclusion.
Birds typically have four babies a year, and yet the population of birds doesn't double every year. Two thirds of polar bears die before age three -- before they are sexually mature. Most die of starvation. This list could go on and on.
You would do less damage to your cause by acknowledging the existence of pain in the world. I believe you have a doctrine that covers it. Maybe C.S. Lewis could help.
I can see that there is no center to the surface of a sphere (there is a center to a sphere, yes? but that is a different and unrelated matter, no?). For this analogy to have any significance, FAQA.ORG would have to be proposing that the Universe is a two dimensional spherical surface, and that we can neither look into (towards the center of) the sphere nor out from the sphere, but only along the surface of the sphere. Otherwise, I dont know how it is helpful (conceptually speaking).
Is this the latest state of scientific thinking on the nature of the Universe? Einstein would be amazed.
Anything less than understanding that Christ is your savior and forgives you of your transgressions when you ask Him of forgiveness, is a successful attempt in diverting you from the truth.
I honestly don’t need a website to understand this and it has nothing whatsoever to do with creationism, creation websites or whatever strawman people drone on about.
What lawsuits to silence Creationists? I hear this garbage all the time. Creationists never seem to shut up, so who the heck is suing them to silence? What cases are you talking about tpanter, the ones the voices tell you about? The same voices that whisper ACLU, NEA, liberal strawman?
There’s probably treatment for that in your area.
It’s telling that when you get yourself painted into a corner you come unglued like this allmendream, you should reflect on that awhile.
Metmom’s posted links, I’ve posted links, as if it’s some obscure secret.
So now that you’ve gotten all your tantrums out of the way, where ARE the lawsuits to silence algore’s hot air cult?
Pretending like there aren’t lawsuits by the hundreds by the ACLU and others to silence Christians across the board, and yes including science class, (heck, even before a textbook can get INTO class the minions of liberals with God-hang-ups are suing to get stickers off of textbooks); doesn’t even come close to getting you off the hook!
You're confusing the theory with the cult. Well, what's left of the theory.
Moreover there is no “right” to have your views taught in science class, so if by “silence” you mean, “rejected as part of the curriculum” you are making a laughable claim; that Creationists have the “right” to teach their religious views in public schools in conjunction with science education, and that lawsuits are depriving them of this “right”.
js: No doubt you'd like your version of physics taught in schools also?
I guess "edge" and "center" are too abstract for students...
Like Klintoon and his insane that depends on what "is" "is" nonsense.
And I keep forgetting, liberals believe that everyone has a right to have input to their children's educations, except Christian conservatives.
It would help to understand the terms...
evolution...not to mention what version, the theory or the cult.
darwinism...still trying to sort through this one myself, like nailing jello to a wall.
In your frenzy you left out the reading comprehension part...
no lawsuits over string, multiverse...your fellow liberal algoreacle...
your asserting such rubbish as “it ain’t science unless it’s measurable and observable” died waaaaaay up thread allmendream.
Come to think of it on several threads now.
One death is all that’s necessary allmendream.
No, that's the same old tired liberal strawmen liberals are desperate to interject into their failing debate.
Secondly one must assume that there are no measurable or observable predictions that could be made for string theory.
Then one would have to ignore the fact that nobody is lying and perjuring themselves in an attempting to have “multiverse” or “string” taught in public schools.
If one assumes all that then you might possibly have a valid point. But those assumptions are asinine.
tpantherwhere ARE the lawsuits to silence algores hot air cult? string-theorists? multiverse-theorists?
Not to mention warped passages.
I dont recall that youve ever said that lawsuits have been successful in silencing Creationists (that is, Christians). It seems to me that you and many others (Hi! metmom) have been identifying various ways (lawsuits being one) that attempts are being incessantly made to silence Christians. The difference is not difficult to discern. It cannot be attributed to a failed effort to understand, made by hopelessly confused, conscientious thinkers. The answer must be found elsewhere. Perhaps it is a question of sincerity and intellectual honesty?
Do you think any religious group has the “right” to teach their beliefs in public school? Which ones, and based upon what criteria?
Can an evo ever just answer a question?
Do they ALWAYS have to create a strawman to knock down to think that they’ve made some point against non-evos?