Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A Bush appointed evangelical Christian Republican.
They turned their backs on DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS in favor of CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED at a time when God was welcome here.Well, it's their fault then, because they screwed up and started a secualr republic instead.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling.They turned their backs on DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS in favor of CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED at a time when God was welcome here.
He still is, but the window is closing fast.
Should there be?Not much difference between you and Harold Camping, is there, ...
There were only two questions before the court, was the intelligent designer God and was intelligent design taught in the text book in question. It had nothing to do with creationism being true or false, it wasn't about creationism at all. Like the scopes monkey trial it was over Darwinism being challenged as the absolute truth. Based on the lemon test and establishment clause the trial was over before it started.Both sides -- creationists and evolutionists -- got the chance to present their evidence in court. The evolutionists won, because if you examine creationist claims with the rigors of science, there is no evidence behind them; whereas there is plenty with evolution.
Let me put it this way: if creationism were true, you'd be able to prove it without the Bible, using science as a method of data-gathering and analysis.
Science doesn't prove anything, but star formation is a very natural process that we can observe.There is no way to prove anything from the big bang to
stellar formation to the beginning of life with science.
All are extra-natural or supernatural.
How did energy begin, when the first law of thermodymics
says it can neither be created nor destroyed?
I really wish folks would learn what spontaneous generation is, and is not, and how it's different from abiogenesis.Many prominent scientists posit the unseen, unobserved multiverse, parallel universes, panspermia, spontaneous generation, etc. as explanations for the nature of our universe and life on earth, and it's considered to be sober, reasonable science.
Other scientists go by what's actually observable - the precision of the universe and the specified, complex, purposeful information of life - and conclude there's an omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God behind it all...but that's labeled "pseudo-science."
I know this is getting away for the Dover trial specifically, but I believe it's all ultimately related.
The people who say that don't know what they're talking about, are using a legal or laymans definition of "proof" or are snake oil salesmen.I hear people say that scientific theory is proven theory, but then say science proves nothing. what?
Yeah, that Republican Bush appointee was a biased fool.Wasn't the Dover trial abut irreducible complexity and the flagellum as an example?
Well, the judge was a biassed fool.
Give me few hours. I have several links that will explain it better than I can on a Word document on my work computer. I'll post them later tonight.I have heard those things said many times on CF
Differences in the common use of the word "proof" and the academic definition of the word. A lot of what is considered scientific evidence would be commonly called "proof", but since this definition is rather subjective, it isn't useful in these discussions (though, people are still prone to using it by mistake). In academic terms, "proof" is a standard which narrows down all possibilities to just 1 indisputable answer. 2+2=4, and the answer is indisputably 4. As a result, academic "proof" only applies to math. Since one of the qualifications of a theory is that it can be disproven, by definition, theories can't be the sole possible explanation... even if they are the only plausible one. So, with theories, you can be 99.99% certain of them, but never 100% certain. And every other possibility will be contained in that 0.01% left over.I hear people say that scientific theory is proven theory, but then say science proves nothing. what?
Differences in the common use of the word "proof" and the academic definition of the word. A lot of what is considered scientific evidence would be commonly called "proof", but since this definition is rather subjective, it isn't useful in these discussions (though, people are still prone to using it by mistake). In academic terms, "proof" is a standard which narrows down all possibilities to just 1 indisputable answer. 2+2=4, and the answer is indisputably 4. As a result, academic "proof" only applies to math. Since one of the qualifications of a theory is that it can be disproven, by definition, theories can't be the sole possible explanation... even if they are the only plausible one. So, with theories, you can be 99.99% certain of them, but never 100% certain. And every other possibility will be contained in that 0.01% left over.
Both sides -- creationists and evolutionists -- got the chance to present their evidence in court. The evolutionists won, because if you examine creationist claims with the rigors of science, there is no evidence behind them; whereas there is plenty with evolution.
Let me put it this way: if creationism were true, you'd be able to prove it without the Bible, using science as a method of data-gathering and analysis.
You can if they have any affects on the rest of nature. For example: a a noadic flood.You can't scientifically support events not of natural origin.
Differences in the common use of the word "proof" and the academic definition of the word. A lot of what is considered scientific evidence would be commonly called "proof", but since this definition is rather subjective, it isn't useful in these discussions (though, people are still prone to using it by mistake). In academic terms, "proof" is a standard which narrows down all possibilities to just 1 indisputable answer. 2+2=4, and the answer is indisputably 4. As a result, academic "proof" only applies to math. Since one of the qualifications of a theory is that it can be disproven, by definition, theories can't be the sole possible explanation... even if they are the only plausible one. So, with theories, you can be 99.99% certain of them, but never 100% certain. And every other possibility will be contained in that 0.01% left over.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?