6 years ago :: Apr 19, 2012 - 12:56PM #221 | |
AND you may not use any seasonings with your feast !!~(Google: Scientist God) www.godandscience.org/apologetics/scienc... www-mtl.mit.edu/~penfield/pubs/god-scien... ...MIT lecture series www.dlshq.org/messages/sciblgod.htmPresi... of the New York Academy of Sciences www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belie... ... www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/apr/08/p... ... The big hope for finding the "Higgs boson" en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Yann_Martel ...Love is hard to believe, ask any lover. omdelhi.hubpages.com/hub/Religion-and-Sc... ... USA News: www.univforum.org/pdf/why_scientist_God_.... Francis Collins explains! ...“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of SCIENCE becomes convinced that a SPIRIT is manifest in the laws of the universe ...SEE also: nobelists.net Scientists searching for a 'God spot' in the brain have found three areas that control religious belief. A study of 40 participants, including Christians, Muslims, Jews and Buddhists, 'God gene' discovered by scientist behind gay DNA theory... www.liveleak.com/view?i=543_1223490316 www.knowledgesutra.com/discuss/tmmmmd-sc... I Am a Scientist And I Believe In God - ....Believer Scientists "The Science of God" by Dr. Gerald L Schroeder A God and scientist joke? "God and the Scientist" God was sitting in heaven one day when a scientist said to Him, "God, we don't need you anymore. "Oh, is that so? Tell Me..." replies God. "Well," says the scientist, "we can take dirt and form it into the likeness of you and breathe life into it, thus creating man." "Well, that's very interesting...show Me." So the scientist bends down to the earth and starts to mold the soil into the shape of a man. "No, no, no..." interrupts God, "Get your own dirt."... |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: Apr 19, 2012 - 1:24PM #222 | |
I do it; lots of others do it. We make our own dirt. Try it sometime.
1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. 3. God is the original nothingness of the universe. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: Apr 19, 2012 - 1:32PM #223 | |
You have some flaws here. Let me correct them.
1. Extremists think that thinking means agreeing with them.
2. There are three sides to every story: your side, my side, and the truth. 3. God is the original nothingness of the universe. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: Apr 19, 2012 - 1:38PM #224 | |
You know, I personally believe there is something called God out there in, through and beyond the universe who crafted and set off the Big Bang. However, I understand that is a personal belief and should not be taught as science as there is not and never will be proof. God is by definition supernatural and beyond the testing required for something to be the purview of science. IMO confusing religion and science only creates bad science and bad religion.
combining bad science and bad religion is even worse.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize what you heard was not what I meant...
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: Apr 19, 2012 - 7:05PM #225 | |
Philip Johnson: "This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy." "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." William Dembski: "[A]ny view of the sciences that leaves Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient." "Indeed, intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." Paul Nelson: "Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don't have such a theory now, and that's a real problem. Without a theory it's very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we've got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as "irreducible complexity" and "specified complexity" - but as yet no general theory of biological design." There's a lot more where that came from. Also, in the Dover trial, Michael Behe, the only proponent of ID with any significant, credible scientific background, admitted under oath that for intelligent design to count as science, we would have to lower scientific standards so that astrology counted as science. Intelligent design is not science. It is a political sham to force religion into public schools.
In the Dover trial, it emerged that the creationist text book Of Pandas and Thumbs was changed after the creationists lost a major battle in court on the grounds that it was a religious doctrine. The change consisted merely of replacing each instance of "creationism" within the text to "intelligent design", their new brand following the lost legal battle. So, no, you have things backwards: identifying intelligent design as just creationism under another label is not merely a rhetorical strategy on the part of the scientific community, it is a recognition that cynically, even the leaders of the ID movement know they are the same, hence the re-labeling in the pages of their most famous text. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: Apr 19, 2012 - 7:48PM #226 | |
that's a logical faux pau because if you follow the story it follows that compost and everything it takes to make it also would originate from God, so you still can't have your own dirt. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: Apr 19, 2012 - 8:11PM #227 | |
You jump from the statement "no examinable evidence suggests" to "therefore they have no objective existance". Now if you want to infer the latter from the former for reasons such as the most efficient explanation given the former is the latter I won't argue the point. But logic doesn't dictate or even support such negative inferences. Since there is no rational way to get from point A to point B in this case what you've said can't be other than a statement of preference. So if you are going to say this you can't also seriously expect me to accept your claim that you are being rational over my claim that you are merely making a statement of preference. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: Apr 19, 2012 - 8:19PM #228 | |
Koala that's a logical faux pau because if you follow the story it follows that compost and everything it takes to make it also would originate from God, so you still can't have your own dirt. So the god in the story is claiming to have created matter and energy, that is, not to be made of matter / energy itself. Which means the god in the story is physically non-existent, hence at best imaginary. |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: Apr 19, 2012 - 9:38PM #229 | |
What flavor hat did you eat? |
|
Quick Reply
|
|
6 years ago :: Apr 19, 2012 - 11:01PM #230 | |
Rgurley Since none of your links is a peer-reviewed paper taking seriously the idea of supernatural beings in physics, I was going to ask you the same question. |
|
Quick Reply
|