George Zimmerman...

800OVER

Milo;356216 wrote800 . . . what I said was that the person voting on the legislation is probably not the person who wrote it, and I think I am pretty solid on that. Feel free to correct me.

Does this translate to roughly: "I have absolutely nothing to back that up but air?"

The man who put the monsanto provision into the budget bill in the US is a US senator. THey write the bills as well. AND that's not what you "said" you said that the people who write the legislation follow science. It's not the case. The people who create and vote on legislation do not follow science. THey follow ideologies.

800OVER

Milo;356239 wrote the Catholic church has long history of supporting and promoting scientific research and discovery

Church supports science until it conflicts with their doctrine.

Like:

the position that gays choose to be gay (and that they can be changed).
Exorcisms
Fertility treatments are an abomination.
Against organ donation
how about what they say about the pill? Condoms?
Believe that abstinence is the best policy for controlling aids (is this scientific?)

And don't even get me started on the new testament being the word of God. It's the word that a bunch of men approved for print. Am I dismissing the importance of the bible? nope. But to say that the old testament is a quaint story and that the new testament is God's will is ridiculous. Unless you care to parse the problems...

Jesus believed in death for some crimes (including insulting your parents)
New testament says runaway slaves should be brought back to their owners
NT says do not pray in public. give ALL of your possessions away, don't save money etc.
Men have dominion over woman and woman should not tell a man to do anything or teach them anything....

You're fine with all that?

The Prophet 22

800OVER;356208 wrote There are states where the legislator voted to make it legal to present creationism in SCIENCE class. And that is something that happened recently!!!

And the problem with that is what exactly?

Since the Scopes trial, which the evolutionist lost by the way, they continued teaching the theory of evolution until it became a standard in science.

Intelligent Design (ID) is a theory. One may argue that it is creationism masked so be it. The God particle theory wasn't developed until 1964 and still hasn't been proven. Scientist believe they saw it back in March but aren't 100% sure. It hasn't stopped scientist from teaching about its existence.

That is what a scientist does. He theorizes and goes about trying to prove his theory. ID isn't going away any time soon. The more advance man is getting from a technological stance, the more man is finding out Darwin didn't have all the answers.

http://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/nobel-prize-winners-who-believe-in-intelligent-design/

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/seven-nobel-laureates-in-science-who-either-supported-intelligent-design-or-attacked-darwinian-evolution/

Other Nobel Prize Winners on Intelligent Design and Fine Tuned Universe

ALBERT EINSTEIN, Nobel Laureate in Physics (he believed in a God like Spinoza did, but a God who design echoed throughout the universe)
MAX PLANCK, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WERNER HEISENBERG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ERWIN SCHRÖDINGER, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ROBERT MILLIKAN, Nobel Laureate in Physics:
CHARLES TOWNES, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR SCHAWLOW, Nobel Laureate in Physics
WILLIAM PHILLIPS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
SIR WILLIAM H. BRAGG, Nobel Laureate in Physics
GUGLIELMO MARCONI, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARTHUR COMPTON, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ARNO PENZIAS, Nobel Laureate in Physics
ALEXIS CARREL, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
SIR JOHN ECCLES, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
JOSEPH MURRAY, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
SIR ERNST CHAIN, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology
GEORGE WALD, Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology (note: he has quotes which defend atheism & deism)
SIR DEREK BARTON, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
CHRISTIAN ANFINSEN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
WALTER KOHN, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry

Milo

Sorry, Brent, but saying that Einstein supports the Intelligent Design idea is a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. When was ID first proposed? I have only heard it mentioned prominently in the last decade or so, but even if it has been around since the 60's . . . . Einstein died a decade earlier. Trying to use some of his quotes to say he supported the idea does not exactly bolster the argument.

To me, the vast majority of proponents that I have heard speaking on Intelligent Design, and Creationism, are not interested in "science" for any reason other than how it can be twisted to support their argument.

Quick skim of Wiki says ID started in 1984, so Einstein cannot be a supporter, as he died 30 years before.

No one has ever said that Darwin had "all the answers", but no one to date has come up with a better theory than his. Certainly not one as widely supported by data.

trigs

the intelligent design argument (also know as the teleological argument for the existence of god) has been around since the 13th century when st. thomas aquinas came up with it.

trigs

Milo;356239 wrotePart of the problem, in my opinion, is that all too many people think that Religion is anti-science, when the two are not incompatible at all. In order for one to believe that they are, one needs to be fairly selective in which denominations/sects they pick and choose in their examples. the Catholic church has long history of supporting and promoting scientific research and discovery (waiting patiently for someone to bring up Gallileo . . .).

i took a course called 'the encounter of science and religion' in university. it was really interesting as it argued the similarities in the direction of science and religion and considered 4 different viewpoints of the relationship. the main texts were 'when science meets religion' by barbour, and 'god and the new metaphysics' by grunning. i still have both books (as i kept almost all my university texts). i prefer the latter but both good reads.

trigs

Milo;356257 wroteNo one has ever said that Darwin had "all the answers", but no one to date has come up with a better theory than his. Certainly not one as widely supported by data.

just to defend darwin for a second, there has been a lot of ideas that stemmed from darwinism that darwin himself never stated. darwin had a following after his original publications and his followers expanded on his theories with their own ideas. however, darwin has been credited for these ideas still. big example, darwin never used the term 'evolution' in his 'the origin of species'.

Milo

Was under the impression that I.D. was a fairly recent, somewhat modified, offshoot of the teleological argument. Or am I confusing it with the whole Young Earth stuff?

Regardless . . . Darwin wins.

Milo

Back on point for a moment, here's something you may not see widely broadcast.

Man aquitted in Trayvon Martin death helps rescue family from overturned SUV

800OVER

ID has NOTHING to due with science. Creationism has nothing to do with science. you wanna teach creationism put it in a religion class. There's no scientific method to test creationism. Trial and error for Adam and Eve? Double blind tests to see if the book of Genesis occurred?

Milo

Just to stir things a little . . . and avoiding the Old Testament altogether . . . do you believe that Jesus Christ existed?

trigs

Acquitted Development - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 07/15/13 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

Milo

Would not play for me . . .

The Prophet 22

800OVER;356302 wroteID has NOTHING to due with science. Creationism has nothing to do with science. you wanna teach creationism put it in a religion class. There's no scientific method to test creationism. Trial and error for Adam and Eve? Double blind tests to see if the book of Genesis occurred?

You see there you go again. I have not stated ID is a fact. All I have said is there is more to our understanding to our universe than we can imagine. If a double blind test is your criteria for proof then I guess you better throw out the "Big Bang Theory" to the start of the universe and countless other things that are taught in science. And work your way down from there. As I have stated in past post, sometimes times it can take years for theories to be proven true. You cry for evidence of a designer, (GOD, there I will say it) and the atheist in you hasn't got a proven theory to the start in the universe we have today.

Sometimes the complexities of the universe and everything in living and non living to have happened by random chance and not a guided process, the odds are so astronomical, I can't imagine the equation.

No said admitting there was an outside force involved in all this means you have to worship it. That is still your choice.

You want to cherry pick thoughts about problem passages in the New Testament, PM me and I will have an open honest, frank discussion, for now I am done with this thread it has been enjoyable.

Brent R.A. Wilson

GTA Poker

Thanks Brent for exemplifying why you can't have an intelligent argument with people that believe that someone collected 10-30 million pairs of insects and had them fuck on a boat.

gg science

DrTyore

GTA Poker;356340 wroteThanks Brent for exemplifying why you can't have an intelligent argument with people that believe that someone collected 10-30 million pairs of insects and had them fuck on a boat.

gg science

I was going to say that I believe Brent had said all that needs to be said.

I guess I was on his ignore list since he never responded to anything I said... which suggests he either

Posted then +ignored me

Is avoiding response to my diatribe

Has had me on ignore since before this thread and just took potshots.

Regardless, I'm okay with all options.

Mark

Milo

GTA Poker;356340 wroteThanks Brent for exemplifying why you can't have an intelligent argument with people that believe that someone collected 10-30 million pairs of insects and had them fuck on a boat.

gg science

Still stuck on literal interpretations of the Old testament, huh?

Also, one could just as easily turn that around and state that a person of Faith cannot have an intelligent conversation with someone who refuses to believe anything that cannot be categorically demonstrated in front of their eyes.

I believe in God . . . that in no way prevents me from accepting scientific realities. In fact, scientific realities often can be used to as a basis for certain religious beliefs. For example, science informs us that at the moment of conception a fetus is an individual human being in it's own right. As a human being, that baby "should" be entitled to the same protections under the UN Declaration of Human Rights as you or I do.

I put this out there, not to derail this thread even further, but merely to point out, once again, that the only people who seem to be saying that science and Faith are incompatible (irreconcilable?) are the anti-religious. As a person of Faith, I am awestruck by the wondrous discoveries that we continue to make, and consider myself blessed to have lived through so many of them.

Anti-science whack-a-doodles are an embarrassment, not because they may or may not be people of Faith, but simply because they are whack-a-doodles. They are on a par with 9/11 truthers, and holocaust deniers in my book. Should we believe that all atheists are morons because some of them think that 9/11 was an "inside job"?

GTA Poker

Milo;356343 wroteStill stuck on literal interpretations of the Old testament, huh?

I'm not stuck on anything...to me it is just another crappy book of fiction. I'm not basing my life on the equivalent of taking 50 Shades of Grey as the gospel.

Milo

GTA Poker;356346 wrote I'm not basing my life on the equivalent of taking 50 Shades of Grey as the Gospel.

Well, that would be interesting wouldn't it? >:D

GTA Poker

Look out Mormons here I come

#Reallymagicunderwear

« Previous Page Next Page »