Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is a statement of profound ignorance. Do you also believe in man-made climate change and that the earth is flat? I've got a news flash for ya.....the moon is not made of cheese.
I believe your religous faith is so pitifully weak a scientific theory challenges it.
Fear is in all of your posts. You are scared to death of science.
Weak.
Oh, for sure. I don't have "religious faith." Einstein was a scientist and he believed there is an intelligence to the universe. I think Einstein is a little bit smarter than you are.
Backed by YOUR science. We believe ID is science also. There are scientists who believe in ID.
Then they need to show the science. They don't get in just because it's "fair"!!! If they've got conclusive proof of something, ANYTHING, the majority of scientists would pay attention. So far, however, I see nothing except that we have to accept their mere contention that something, is "irreducibly complex". It's already been shown to be false for the eye and flight and I don't hold out much hope for that explanation of the next set of systems on their list.
The majority of scientists thought Galileo was nuts.
What are you going to say to these nuts?
Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News & Views
I believe your religous faith is so pitifully weak a scientific theory challenges it.
Fear is in all of your posts. You are scared to death of science.
Weak.
Oh, for sure. I don't have "religious faith." Einstein was a scientist and he believed there is an intelligence to the universe. I think Einstein is a little bit smarter than you are.
He believed in an intelligence, or rather, an underlying force, because he was able to see, in all of his numbers and mathmatical dealings with the universe, an incredible cosmic RATIONALITY of things, and sensed that there was something causing this... it doesn't mean he believed in intelligent design. He's not that stupid.
Backed by YOUR science. We believe ID is science also. There are scientists who believe in ID.
Then they need to show the science. They don't get in just because it's "fair"!!! If they've got conclusive proof of something, ANYTHING, the majority of scientists would pay attention. So far, however, I see nothing except that we have to accept their mere contention that something, is "irreducibly complex". It's already been shown to be false for the eye and flight and I don't hold out much hope for that explanation of the next set of systems on their list.
The majority of scientists thought Galileo was nuts.
What are you going to say to these nuts?
Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News & Views
Then why are we taught that the "ancestors" of men crawled out of a swamp? Why are we taught that an ape-like missing link is the ancestor of men and apes? Evolution is a theory put forward to put doubt into those that believe in the Lord. There is not concrete proof or it would not be a "theory".
Then they need to show the science. They don't get in just because it's "fair"!!! If they've got conclusive proof of something, ANYTHING, the majority of scientists would pay attention. So far, however, I see nothing except that we have to accept their mere contention that something, is "irreducibly complex". It's already been shown to be false for the eye and flight and I don't hold out much hope for that explanation of the next set of systems on their list.
The majority of scientists thought Galileo was nuts.
What are you going to say to these nuts?
Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News & Views
They're hardly a majority and you offer no proof of the Galileo comment. I've never heard that, so please provide a cite. My knowledge of history tells me that was another incident when relgious teaching battled science, just like you're doing here. I think the takeaway message in all that is the the real science triumphed and will do so in the ID debate, too.
Right in the very first verse....."In the beginning". Is that the "big bang"?
Oh, for sure. I don't have "religious faith." Einstein was a scientist and he believed there is an intelligence to the universe. I think Einstein is a little bit smarter than you are.
He believed in an intelligence, or rather, an underlying force, because he was able to see, in all of his numbers and mathmatical dealings with the universe, an incredible cosmic RATIONALITY of things, and sensed that there was something causing this... it doesn't mean he believed in intelligent design. He's not that stupid.
Intelligence is a living being, not a "force". There are universal laws. Einstein believed that was not by accident. Watching Star Wars movies do not count as scientific knowledge.
The majority of scientists thought Galileo was nuts.
What are you going to say to these nuts?
Scientists who support intelligent design - Evolution News & Views
They're hardly a majority and you offer no proof of the Galileo comment. I've never heard that, so please provide a cite. My knowledge of history tells me that was another incident when relgious teaching battled science, just like you're doing here. I think the takeaway message in all that is the the real science triumphed and will do so in the ID debate, too.
I don't have to offer proof of the Galileo comment because it's common knowledge so check it out yourself.
You and your pals need ID in the religious box so you can dismiss it. The only thing you want taught in your indoctrination centers is your religion of evolution. Then you argue that it's the others who have the closed minds.
Oh, for sure. I don't have "religious faith." Einstein was a scientist and he believed there is an intelligence to the universe. I think Einstein is a little bit smarter than you are.
He believed in an intelligence, or rather, an underlying force, because he was able to see, in all of his numbers and mathmatical dealings with the universe, an incredible cosmic RATIONALITY of things, and sensed that there was something causing this... it doesn't mean he believed in intelligent design. He's not that stupid.
Intelligence is a living being, not a "force". There are universal laws. Einstein believed that was not by accident. Watching Star Wars movies do not count as scientific knowledge.
He believed in an intelligence, or rather, an underlying force, because he was able to see, in all of his numbers and mathmatical dealings with the universe, an incredible cosmic RATIONALITY of things, and sensed that there was something causing this... it doesn't mean he believed in intelligent design. He's not that stupid.
Intelligence is a living being, not a "force". There are universal laws. Einstein believed that was not by accident. Watching Star Wars movies do not count as scientific knowledge.
Now you're confusing the origin of the universe with creationism/ID. Those are two different topics. I can believe The Big Bang was the "let there be light" incident, when all the "universal laws" were laid and down AND believe those laws led to abiogenesis and evolution, as "God's Plan".
Thanks for explaining. We agree there. So you have no problem with ID being taught along with evolution?
Of course I have a problem with that. One is backed by science, one isn't.
I have no problem with it being taught in a religion course, just not in a science course.
Backed by YOUR science. We believe ID is science also. There are scientists who believe in ID.
Intelligence is a living being, not a "force". There are universal laws. Einstein believed that was not by accident. Watching Star Wars movies do not count as scientific knowledge.
Now you're confusing the origin of the universe with creationism/ID. Those are two different topics. I can believe The Big Bang was the "let there be light" incident, when all the "universal laws" were laid and down AND believe those laws led to abiogenesis and evolution, as "God's Plan".
Wonderful. And I can believe that "let there be light" is when all the "universal laws" were laid down AND believe those laws led to creation by an intelligence. Now why can't I teach that in the public indoctrination centers?
Intelligence is a living being, not a "force". There are universal laws. Einstein believed that was not by accident. Watching Star Wars movies do not count as scientific knowledge.
Now you're confusing the origin of the universe with creationism/ID. Those are two different topics. I can believe The Big Bang was the "let there be light" incident, when all the "universal laws" were laid and down AND believe those laws led to abiogenesis and evolution, as "God's Plan".
Wonderful. And I can believe that "let there be light" is when all the "universal laws" were laid down AND believe those laws led to creation by an intelligence. Now why can't I teach that in the public indoctrination centers?
Scientific theories are facts to laymen.
Gravity is a clear example. Prior to 1906, it was a generally accepted idea in physics that bodies had attraction. That gravity was a force exerted by large bodies on smaller ones.
Einstein demonstrated that this simply isn't the case, that there is no attractive force and that gravity is an EFFECT of the distortion of the fabric of space caused by a body. Thus, gravity as a theory was altered.
So, was Newton wrong? Did gravity not function? No, and no. Scientific knowledge is classified as theory because in real science, falsification and refinement are part of the process. (The religion of AGW is exempt from this process.)
Gravity was a fact before 1906 and remained a fact afterwards. The alteration of the mechanics of gravity didn't alter the factual nature of it.
Evolution is a fact. Details will be challenged and changed, but evolution will remain a fact.
Gravity is a force that we understand through the theory of Gravity. Theories change as you have pointed out.
We exist in the here and now. The theory of Evolution is sciences best explaination of how we evolved from a common ancestor.
Except it in no way proves that we did evolve from a common ancestor. In fact, it doesn't address how multiple species come into being at ALL. While we can all see how genetics work in any given gene pool, and see creatures within the same gene pool change....we cannot see how that applies to the creation of life, or the creation of different SPECIES.
If evolution leads to different species, then why on earth are mules sterile for the most part? Isn't that sort of weird? Where is the evidence that one species can change into...another species?
I know what the theory of evolution is. Which is why I'm confused that you and others argue it as if it puts the lie to creationism. You guys won't quit dragging it into discussions about the creation, or about the establishment of separate species.
What lie to creationism? I don't care about creationism. I don't care if you or anyone else believes in creationism. I believe creationism is based on faith not scientific observation, hypothesis, experimentation and conclusion (often starting another observation, hypothesis,.....). It has no business being taught in science class because it is simply not science anymore than the book of Genesis is a book of science.
It should be taught in the classroom. Genesis should be taught, at least up to the day the Lord rested. It should be pointed out that the "theory of evolution" has not disproved the stated order. It should be taught that Genesis was written thousands of years ago by people with no technology, no telescopes, no microscopes, that stated they were influenced by a superior being they called the Lord. It should also be taught that the order of creation has not been disproved by any scientific evidence. The evidence collected by science actually supports the order stated in Genesis. At that point the teacher can add all the slanted material they want to either side (as opinion, stated as opinion).
Then go ahead and teach the "theory of evolution". Let the students decide for themselves to look for truth.
Right in the very first verse....."In the beginning". Is that the "big bang"?
Einstein also denied quantum theory because of that belief. Massive strides in science have also been discovered since Einsteins time period. Your whole argument is an appeal to authority and rather pointless. The fact that Einstein believed in god means nothing as to whether or not that view is scientific.
And who decides that believing God created the universe is not "scientific"?
And that's the heart of the matter right there, Jack. They have decided that intelligent design is not 'scientific' because they have no way of studying it, we are not advanced enough, and maybe never will be, so it's easier to dismiss it and say it's 'just religion'. These people are arguing against straw men that they've created in their own mind. No one is denying evolution within species, no one is saying that science and religion have to be mutually exclusive of each other. Gadawig, or whatever the hell his name is, thinks he has a corner on the market by believing in both science and God, which is ridiculous. I haven't seen one person in this thread say that science is not valid. It's a ridiculous argument, that when taken to the basics, makes no sense whatsoever.
He believed in an intelligence, or rather, an underlying force, because he was able to see, in all of his numbers and mathmatical dealings with the universe, an incredible cosmic RATIONALITY of things, and sensed that there was something causing this... it doesn't mean he believed in intelligent design. He's not that stupid.
Intelligence is a living being, not a "force". There are universal laws. Einstein believed that was not by accident. Watching Star Wars movies do not count as scientific knowledge.
Now youre just splitting hairs and getting into semantics... it's the same idea. It was not an intelligent being the same as your god that Einstein meant. Not at all, so quite hoping it was, and riding Einstein's credibility as a genius to try and vindicate your point of view.
Of course I have a problem with that. One is backed by science, one isn't.
I have no problem with it being taught in a religion course, just not in a science course.
Backed by YOUR science. We believe ID is science also. There are scientists who believe in ID.
Show ONE SINGLE PIECE or evidence for ID. Now you are pushing again that it should be taught alongside evolution even though it is NOT science.
