Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, I think I agree with The Onion. After all, as most Creationists say, it's just a matter of world views and how you interpret the evidence.
The way I view it, the fact is that all things falling simply points to a common "faller". Therefore, the pre-conceived notion that there is such a thing as "Intelligent Falling" must be true.
I bet I could make a fortune over at the Discovery Institute for making crap like this up....
I guess you are not a closed-minded gravitist then.
Why are so Christians so presumptuous? How can anyone knows God's time? How could God explain to people who knew nothing of science (ex. disease is a curse) that the Earth is millions of years old? Days are always going to be the same. The rotation of the Earth is a good point of reference for a work that is supposed to be timeless. Always wondered.
Some Christians tend to be very creative when trying to explain the impossible...I'm constantly wondering what goofy rationalizations they will come up with next....
The last time I checked evolution was still called the "Theory of Evolution."
Apparently you haven't checked for at least 50 or so years... That silly fall-back line's gettin' real tired, don't you know...
Just so you know, and might begin to understand, we scientists refer initially to pretty much every possible law as, technically, a theory. Such as the theory that the sun will appear in the east tomorrow morning.
After a v. high number of uncontrovertable, recorded and corroborated observations, we move, like the predictable egotistical idiots we are, into the assumptions that we probably have a verifiable law. But pushed, we'll admit that everything might change on the 39 billionth test. Hence, in the exact technical jargon of peer-reviewed science (which BTW keeps our side predictably honest), it remains a theory. In theory at least. "Practically" is another matter.
Don't use simple semantics against us. It shows your lack of good debating skills, and also that you are completely willing to just go along with the generalized uninformed bleating of the rest of the scared BSMs. It's unbecoming, really, DaniMae!
I think that both (ref. "Theory" & "Evolution") go hand in hand somehow myself. Neither one makes sense in and of itself.
Really. Really? So sad. One ("a theory") is just a thought process, but perhaps my explanation above will cancel the absurd idea that "theory" in and of itself "makes no sense." Is that really what you meant to say?
And the other, "evolution", actually quite adequately explains, down to the atomic level, how species diversity has occurred through favorable and observable mutation rates. Unfortunately for those who are idealogically stuck mercilessly in the mid-50s, time and science marches on relentlessly. Science has accumulated a pretty much airtight and inescapable case for Evolution. It's no longer, in a practical sense as I noted above, just a theory. It's practically The Law of Evolution. We're just being polite for now.
If Christian fundamentalists had the levels of evidence, proof and observed data we have, they'd be dancing in the streets. And if that were the case, we scientists would in all likelihood be dedicated believers. But right now you folks can't even rise to the level of a possible theory just yet. Keep at it though. I'm sure you'll find something, some day. When you do, I also know we'll all hear about it!
Of course you are more than free to disbelieve in our ideas. But to label the science senseless? Again, really? And again, how sad. I personally couldn't stand to have all of life's little amazements interpreted for me by someone else. What, exactly, does that say about one's own powers of observation as well as the ability to come ot one's own conclusions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesaje
They (ref. P & T) have long been proponents of reason and are outed atheists. They have a bully pulpit and use it well.
The real problem is that creationism uses and teaches all the inept thinking traits that are anti-science. (Yep. That was pretty clear in these videos!) The fundamental lesson in studying science is to learn the scientific method and to learn how to be aware of human irrational failings and how to keep them out of the analysis. Science gets nowhere when everything can be attributed to the magic man in the sky. As was so clearly evidenced by the long centuries during the middle ages when the religionists held sway and severely punished anyone who had the temerity to think.
Thx, Tesaje; well said. But I warn you; it won't work. "Unerring Faith is the Shield against which Truth is Dashed!"(You know, honest to God, I just made that one up, and it's kinda good, don'tcha think?) I'm gonna add an ® or ™. Then I'll be a rich idiotic arrogant egotistical bull-headed scientist!
Peace for the Coming Yuletide Season. It's off to bed for me, Visions of Evolving Sugar Plums, en-route to becoming Real Peaches and all...
Last edited by rifleman; 12-07-2008 at 09:39 PM..
Reason: typos
What bothers me is not just that evolution is a fact, but also, in the name of religion, we are dissing science and teaching the wrong things to kids. From a practical viewpoint, this is a very competitive world - getting more so as it is becoming smaller - and we need to imbibe sense (not propaganda) into our kids.
The last time I checked evolution was still called the "Theory of Evolution." I think that both go hand in hand somehow myself. Neither one makes sense in and of itself.
A theory in science is different than a what laymen mean by theory. A scientific theory such as evolution, is a body of knowledge gathered by observations which can be proven or disproven. A scientific theory is something that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny but has still been proven to be true. Biological evolution adequately explains, with evidentiary support, how life came to be.
The last time I checked evolution was still called the "Theory of Evolution." I think that both go hand in hand somehow myself. Neither one makes sense in and of itself.
If you also knew about Darwin at the time his wife was a religious freak who intimidated him but his so called "theory" also went against her religious beliefs.
Evolution is a fact based on Science not on a theory rooted in Victorian era morals.
I ran across a fundy this weekend while I was out of town, and we got into a brief discussion. He ranted about how ego-driven scientists are (all of us), that it completely clouds our evaluations and observations of otherwise obvious "facts" as interpreted more accurately by Xtians, and said we scientists couldn't explain a lot of things that are simple facts to Christians.
Like what, I asked?
Well, he mentioned as an example some sort of "halo effect" thingy, started with "P". "Palonian halos"??? maybe?
Anyone know what he's talking about? Is it some sort of actual nuclear or astronomical physics thing or is it Xtian mystic theory? I'd love to look into it.
Thanks for any help!
rflmn™
Last edited by rifleman; 12-16-2008 at 12:28 AM..
Reason: typos
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Don't feel bad, your not the only one they have fooled.
Oh Lordy, so to speak....
Innocent Question
