Creationists: What Was Wrong With The Dover Trial?

[pitabread]

A Bush appointed evangelical Christian Republican.

Which made it especially ironic when people later accused him of being an "activist Judge", a phrase usually reserved for hippy Liberal judges.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, it's their fault then, because they screwed up and started a secualr republic instead.

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.

 

[HitchSlap]

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.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Not much difference between you and Harold Camping, is there, except maybe a specific date.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not much difference between you and Harold Camping, is there, ...

Should there be?

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe Harold was right and the Rapture has already happened.

 

[HitchSlap]

Maybe Harold was right and the Rapture has already happened.

Whaaaat.... and I'm still here?

 

[HitchSlap]

Should there be?

Lol... well

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

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.

 

[USincognito]

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?

Science doesn't prove anything, but star formation is a very natural process that we can observe.

 

[W2L]

Science doesn't prove anything, but star formation is a very natural process that we can observe.

I hear people say that scientific theory is proven theory, but then say science proves nothing. what?

 

[USincognito]

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.

I really wish folks would learn what spontaneous generation is, and is not, and how it's different from abiogenesis.

 

[USincognito]

I hear people say that scientific theory is proven theory, but then say science proves nothing. what?

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.

 

[W2L]

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 have heard those things said many times on CF

 

[USincognito]

Wasn't the Dover trial abut irreducible complexity and the flagellum as an example?
Well, the judge was a biassed fool.

Yeah, that Republican Bush appointee was a biased fool.

 

[USincognito]

I have heard those things said many times on CF

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.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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.

 

[W2L]

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.

 

[SkyWriting]

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't scientifically support events not of natural origin.
Events from the spiritual realm only can be supported by
personal testimony.

 

[Audacious]

You can't scientifically support events not of natural origin.

You can if they have any affects on the rest of nature. For example: a a noadic flood.

Or did God just decide to flood the Earth and then leave absolutely no evidence of any kind behind? Because that would be kind of weird.

 

[SkyWriting]

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.

You got that right! There is only proof in math.