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.
Look, Einstein, i'm spreading genuine quotes by the prophets of the church of naturalism (the new mandatory religion of the western world).And again, another example of you quote-mining.
To engage in spreading quote-mined quotes is to engage in spreading a lie. You may think that you are spreading the truth, but you are not. You are spreading a lie.
If anyone here's desperate, it's you.
Look, Einstein, i'm spreading genuine quotes by the prophets of the church of naturalism (the new mandatory religion of the western world).
If they are lies, they are not my lies, you see?
You're barking up the wrong tree.
Then prove it.I have made this clear, and you really must have bad reading comprehension here: you ARE spreading lies.
How many times do i have to explain to you lot that the scientific method does not apply to the questions about the origins?
And no, that doesn't imply you can not approach the evidence scientifically, but naturalism assumes the answer a priori and sell it as "science"
That's your assumption. I don't know.Oh, so we're falling back on conspiracy now?
BECAUSE IT HAPPENED IN THE DISTANT PASTReally? Why not?
Here's the OP again:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/revealing-quotes-from-revered-scientists.7942332/
lest we be bickering about nothing...
Suggesting they meant something other quoted needs evidence, not whining at me.
Then prove it.
You can't.
So you lie.
I picked only one quote to look at in context. I chose the quote from the judge in the Dover Trial Judge Jone E. Jones III. The quote used was:
"We find that while ID arguments may be true, ... ID is not science."
Here it is in a fuller context:
"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. … It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena."
No,you can see in the quote that it's only the essence and the 'chaff' is not quoted.I'll quote the post from Subduction Zone on the judge of the Dover Trial John E Jones III, which shows that his quote has been taken out of context, and I'll highlight the bits that are from the 'quote' you posted:
Notice that there was a whole sentence between those two phrase, and an entire paragraph after the last bold phrase that shows that Intelligent Design is not science.
That is an example of quote-mining and that 'quote' you posted is a lie.
No,you can see in the quote that it's only the essence and the 'chaff' is not quoted.
It still means the same, as you may have noticed.
Blaming me for what your prophets have admitted...
PA-THE-TIC
No,you can see in the quote that it's only the essence and the 'chaff' is not quoted.
It still means the same, as you may have noticed.
Once? Once would be good. Let's see what ya got? And... GO!How many times do i have to explain to you lot that the scientific method does not apply to the questions about the origins?
Hey, I'm not assuming anything, you're the one making suggestive claims and then refusing to flesh them out when questioned.That's your assumption. I don't know.
What is clear though, is that the prophets of the church of naturalism are dishonest and they have admitted it themselves.
BECAUSE IT HAPPENED IN THE DISTANT PAST
Blaming me for what your prophets have admitted...
Enjoy the read:
the only alternative [to evolution] is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.
(LT More)
We find that while ID arguments may be true, ... ID is not science.
(US Dist Judge, John Jones)
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between [naturalistic] science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs ... because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we can not allow a Divine Foot in the door.
(Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of Demons," the New York Review, Januari 9, 1997,p. 31)
Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded form science because it is not naturalistic.
(SD Todd, Nature 410(67520):423, September 30,1999)
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?