>
> Science has already showed me that simply /fabulous/ stuff is quite
> possible, and in fact, mundane-- I wonder why it's so hard for some
> people to accept the true mystery of existence?
Very true! Studying anatomy and physiology, embryology, biochemistry, etc. I
found endlessly fascinatin
On Jan 9, 2008 6:42 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For a full list of citations, here's the document to read. This lists most
> known papers on the shroud, hypotheses on the image formation, and summarizes
> the information in groups, from what is known fact, confirmed obse
> Basically the idea is that there is no reliable way to show where the
> shroud came from.
It's probable that you are right...but not due to lack of corroborating
historical data, but simply because the shroud itself has moved around and been
handled so much, that it is very contaminated at t
Basically the idea is that there is no reliable way to show where the shroud
came from. Was it faked in the 14th or the 5th century? The photos I've seen
look very similar to the late Roman iconography. for instance look at the
length of the index and middle finger. In orthodox iconography very
> So how do we know that this shroud is the real Shroud, and not
> one of the other fakes.
"Real" shroud meaning what?? No credible scientist would ever claim that they
can prove that it is "real" in terms of it being the actual shroud of Christ.
Short of having a DNA sample of Jesus that we co
key [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:47 PM
> > To: CF-Community
> > Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
> >
> > >How much of his work have you read? Do you have ANY experience with
> > him
> > >beyond the Shroud?
> >
>
>But what "scientific testing" has he claimed to do? In my experience, as an
>investigator, he reports on the testing of others.
Unfortunately I don't have time today to look any references up, but I do
recall seeing him mention various tests of different types he has done. Not
like the experim
One thing that really has not been mentioned it that the Shroud itself has a
very iffy history. From AD30 through to around 1000AD there is no real reliable
mention of the Shroud, except for some texts at St. Catharine's in the Sinai,
until Emperor Romanus Tzimikes looted it from Edessa in 944.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:47 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> >How much of his work have you read? Do you have ANY experience with
> him
> >b
>The distance between that which we consider fact and that which we consider
>opinion - that which we believe true and that which are inclined to believe
>- there's significant difference there.
Certainly. Not saying there isn't.
>When somebody is willing to admit not being sure, that's importan
On Jan 9, 2008 10:24 AM, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually no, they (the last Pope at least) has said it is a question for
> science, not religion. But I *do* think the Church has no real desire for it
> to be found authentic. Why? Because one of the basic tenets of faith is th
>It's a hard to balance the need to protect the artifact with the inquiry,
>but (and again I've not looked into it nearly as much as you) most of the
>controversies would seem to be addressable with further tests. The carbon
>dating test, in specific - just do 'em damn it. Do 'em and do 'em right
>Probably because the church knows the shroud is bogussorry.
Actually no, they (the last Pope at least) has said it is a question for
science, not religion. But I *do* think the Church has no real desire for it to
be found authentic. Why? Because one of the basic tenets of faith is that it
56 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
That's my point. If you remove religion from ID it's in the same camp.
Doesn't mean it's worth teaching in high school but teach it
someplace. I believe the intent was to not limit thinking to just what
is known and prova
> -Original Message-
> From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:51 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> >I did not
> >make a claim that it was impossible, just that I'm becoming les
> -Original Message-
> From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:20 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> BTW - an excellent article for information on the latest in Shroud
> science and researc
Probably because the church knows the shroud is bogussorry.
On Jan 8, 2008 11:20 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW - an excellent article for information on the latest in Shroud science
> and research and current scientific understanding of it can be found at:
>
> http://ww
BTW - an excellent article for information on the latest in Shroud science and
research and current scientific understanding of it can be found at:
http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/PapalCustodianvsVatican.htm
What's particularly interesting is how the Church itself is hardly helping in
terms o
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:56 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> That's my point. If you remove religion from ID it's in the same camp.
> Doesn't mean
>Oh come on! That's semantics... millions are clearly, vocally NOT willing
>to make that compromise... ain't that "many"?
Again...this is not what your original statement was. But besides the point of
most of this argument, so I won't rehash it.
>I did not
>make a claim that it was impossible,
> Sam wrote:
> I believe the intent was to not limit thinking to just what
> is known and provable here but to leave the door open for ideas.
>
Yeah. Like FSM.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZOKUdMr95Ig
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 soft
That's my point. If you remove religion from ID it's in the same camp.
Doesn't mean it's worth teaching in high school but teach it
someplace. I believe the intent was to not limit thinking to just what
is known and provable here but to leave the door open for ideas.
On Jan 7, 2008 8:49 PM, Jim Da
On Jan 7, 2008 3:25 PM, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Bowen wrote:
> > Science is not faith-based.
> And it is also NOT the antithesis of faith. Which is a big part I do
> not understand about many such supporters. That Science and Faith is an
> Us versus Them winner take all b
> -Original Message-
> From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:15 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> > I can agree with all of that every single thing you say. BUT - that
> > still doesn
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 10:39 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> Jim Davis wrote:
> > How does science and faith reconcile when one claims with certainty
>
> I can agree with all of that every single thing you say. BUT - that
> still doesn't mean that their aren't many (MANY) people not willing to
> compromise on this
Certainly...I agree with that. But this is not what you said. You said that
it's "not a compromise many are willing to make". That
> >Again, I feel that's a compromise - and not a compromise many are
> willing to make.
>
> Oh I would disagree with that...I would expect the vast majority of
> educated people have no problems with this, nor do they really
> consider it a compromise. First, there is considerable debate about
>Again, I feel that's a compromise - and not a compromise many are willing to
>make.
Oh I would disagree with that...I would expect the vast majority of educated
people have no problems with this, nor do they really consider it a compromise.
First, there is considerable debate about whether tran
> Jim wrote:
> My point isn't that it shouldn't be considered seriously AT ALL, but that it
> shouldn't be considered seriously for life on Earth (until there's some
> evidence that Earth would need such help).
Maybe just a different approach then as I don't see a reason to
exclude anything until
> Didn't meant to imply that *you* did.
k. :-)
> Your statement just triggered my
> thought. I was actually picturing the person at the end of the Nova
> Dover Trial episode that basically said to believe in evolution could
> not be reconciled with his faith so faith must win.
yeah. Like I said
Jim Davis wrote:
> How does science and faith reconcile when one claims with certainty that the
> Earth is millions of years old and the other says with certainty that the
> earth is not more than 6,000 years old?
>
> Jim Davis
I would just ask a counter question why faith would require a belief
William Bowen wrote:
>> And it is also NOT the antithesis of faith.
>>
> Didn't say it was.
>
> And I do understand faith.
Didn't meant to imply that *you* did. Your statement just triggered my
thought. I was actually picturing the person at the end of the Nova
Dover Trial episode that bas
> -Original Message-
> From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:21 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> > Jim wrote:
> > happened several billion years ago. There's really no reason to
> s
> -Original Message-
> From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 12:41 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> >How does science and faith reconcile when one claims with certainty
> that the
> >E
> Jim wrote:
> happened several billion years ago. There's really no reason to suggest it
> seriously
There are lots of reasons to discuss it seriously:
1.) We don't know what early Earth was like.
2.) We don't know what the exact conditions must be to create life.
3.) We have lots of evidence t
>How does science and faith reconcile when one claims with certainty that the
>Earth is millions of years old and the other says with certainty that the
>earth is not more than 6,000 years old?
>
Faith does not say you *must* believe in a literal interpretation of
Genesis...only the fundamentali
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 11:00 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia#Directed_panspermia
Panspermia is really interesting (there was a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia#Directed_panspermia
On Jan 7, 2008 2:02 PM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Extra terrestrials?
>
> Got any repeatable experiments or tests for proving the "Extra
> terrestrials" hypothesis? No? then move along.
>
> Find a single repeatable exp
> -Original Message-
> From: Ian Skinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 5:25 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> William Bowen wrote:
> > Science is not faith-based.
> And it is also NOT the antithesis of
> -Original Message-
> From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, January 07, 2008 4:56 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> So you're OK with a single Judge defining science and religion? Sounds
> scary to me.
In this ca
> And it is also NOT the antithesis of faith.
Didn't say it was.
And I do understand faith.
--
will
"If my life weren't funny, it would just be true;
and that would just be unacceptable."
- Carrie Fisher
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion
It's only a handful
On Jan 7, 2008 2:25 PM, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Bowen wrote:
> > Science is not faith-based.
> And it is also NOT the antithesis of faith. Which is a big part I do
> not understand about many such supporters. That Science and Faith is an
> Us versus T
William Bowen wrote:
> Science is not faith-based.
And it is also NOT the antithesis of faith. Which is a big part I do
not understand about many such supporters. That Science and Faith is an
Us versus Them winner take all battle. Science is not out to disprove
faith and faith does not requir
> Extra terrestrials?
Got any repeatable experiments or tests for proving the "Extra
terrestrials" hypothesis? No? then move along.
Find a single repeatable experiment ( just *one* shouldn't be
difficult) and we'll go ahead and continue this discussion. until
then, keep the religion out of the Sc
Sam wrote:
> Evolution wasn't taught until well after Darwin even though it was
> around way before. Maybe if they did teach it we would have been
> proven it sooner.
HUH?
Exactly my point, I think. Why does ID get a cut straight to the head
of the line? Pay the dues, do the work, prove the wor
So you're OK with a single Judge defining science and religion? Sounds
scary to me.
I got the impression they were more into teaching evolution is not
complete than teaching about a designer
On Jan 7, 2008 1:38 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I thought we determined ID doesn't teach r
Evolution wasn't taught until well after Darwin even though it was
around way before. Maybe if they did teach it we would have been
proven it sooner.
On Jan 7, 2008 1:12 PM, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam wrote:
> "I thought the purpose of science was to answer questions.
> You can'
>I thought we determined ID doesn't teach religion or anything about the
>Designer
Scientifically I'm perfectly willing to accept ID as it presents itself. And
as it presents itself it doesn't meet the rigor of scientific inquiry. As it
presents itself it's not science and shouldn't be taught
Sam wrote:
"I thought the purpose of science was to answer questions.
You can't find the answer to questions if you don't know them."
And if you can not observe, make predictions and test the answers - science
will not answer them at this time.
Until such a time as science has advanced to such
I thought the purpose of science was to answer questions.
You can't find the answer to questions if you don't know them.
On Jan 7, 2008 12:30 PM, Ian Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sam wrote:
> > Extra terrestrials? If we can genetically modify plants and animals
> > who's to say someone el
Sam wrote:
> Extra terrestrials? If we can genetically modify plants and animals
> who's to say someone else didn't do that to us. Can't we just teach
> students that pieces of the puzzle are missing and here are some
> ideas, as far out as they may be?
Not in a Science Class and still call it a Sc
Extra terrestrials? If we can genetically modify plants and animals
who's to say someone else didn't do that to us. Can't we just teach
students that pieces of the puzzle are missing and here are some
ideas, as far out as they may be?
On Jan 7, 2008 11:47 AM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
> I thought we determined ID doesn't teach religion or anything about the
> Designer
No, *you* determined that, and you are wrong.
By requiring/implying a Designer (part of th friggin' name, couldn't
get much more clear than that), ID invokes a higher power which puts
it squarely in the religion
I thought we determined ID doesn't teach religion or anything about the Designer
On Jan 5, 2008 9:15 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Mary Jo wrote:
> > Exactly. Sad that we haven't come all that far from the days of Copernicus
> > and Galileo.
> >
>
> Well, and that's a good point,
What he said :-)
-Original Message-
From: G Money [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 07 January 2008 13:15
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
I'm not getting into this again. You are wrong.
Have a great day.
On Jan 4, 2008 2:33 PM, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED
I'm not getting into this again. You are wrong.
Have a great day.
On Jan 4, 2008 2:33 PM, Bruce Sorge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So the pattern I am already seeing on this thread is that it is OK to
> teach one theory, but not another? I thought the point of educating was
> to present both sid
> Well, there is a growing clamor from many places around the world to
> teach exactly that.
Where? except for a couple of cranks in Norway and Britain, the US is about the
only place where this debate is taking place. Um sorry I forgot to mention
Saudi Arabia and other more fanatical elements o
> GG wrote:
> That fear is completely derivative of weak faith.
>
I found this great church blog:
http://audia6.church-blogs.org/
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to
date
Get the Fre
> Mary Jo wrote:
> Exactly. Sad that we haven't come all that far from the days of Copernicus
> and Galileo.
>
Well, and that's a good point, because another facet of this is that
it's not enough for the IDers to worry about their own faith; they're
worried that others might lose theirs too.
By
>The concept that current science implies an origin that may differ
>from their faith-based view threatens them.
Exactly. Sad that we haven't come all that far from the days of Copernicus and
Galileo.
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion®
""The New York Times reports that the National Academy of Sciences has
just published their third book outlining guidelines for the teaching
of evolution. 'But this volume is unusual, people who worked on it
say, because it is intended specifically for the lay public and
because it devotes much of
** Private ** wrote:
> So is ID impossible or not provable?
ID is not refutable in a way that would convince its proponents. Think about
it: what experiment could refute ID? Any experiment that can be devised to show
that evolution through mutation/selection can produce complexity will just be
On Jan 5, 2008 1:15 AM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> population, etc. I do think that's appropriate for high-school level -
> there are serious debates WITHIN THE THEORY.
I was ready way before high-school. "the consensus" approach really
pissed me off-- "when you get to the 'real
> -Original Message-
> From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 2:13 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 9:04 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not sure what point your making
> -Original Message-
> From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 1:05 AM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> >I know the argument is that ID is a disguise for Creationism, but
> >isn't that
> -Original Message-
> From: Mary Jo Sminkey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:21 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> >It's a public schools job to teach accepted theory and science. ID is
> >neithe
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:38 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> Although, I think that any decent science class should leave the
> students with an underst
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:33 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
>
> So the pattern I am already seeing on this thread is that it is OK to
> teach one theory, but no
welfare
checks.
--
Scott Stewart
ColdFusion Developer
SSTWebworks
4405 Oakshyre Way
Raleigh, NC. 27616
(919) 874-6229 (home)
(703) 220-2835 (cell)
-Original Message-
From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 11:04 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Oh dear God no
On Jan 4, 2008 9:04 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not sure what point your making if any but this is what I came up with
> after reading it.
>
> ID doesn't claim to be deity based.
> Could be a far away experiment checking the nature of evolution with
> new life forms got lost in space and l
> Mary Jo wrote:
> Why should natural evolution of species be any different?
>
Here's the kicker! Because the very people that are supposed to have
faith - the IDers - DON'T!
The concept that current science implies an origin that may differ
from their faith-based view threatens them. Their fai
>I know the argument is that ID is a disguise for Creationism, but
>isn't that the same as saying evolution is all about negating a deity?
No, not anymore than any other scientific explanation for what occurs in nature
is about negating a deity. We don't need an alternate theory for weather
patt
> Sam wrote:
> I'm thinking Darwin's spark in the pond theory needs as much faith as
> creationism. But at least that one is testable.
>
And was beginning in 1953:
(1.) The Miller-Urey experiment tested Oparin and Haldane's hypothesis
that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reacti
Not sure what point your making if any but this is what I came up with
after reading it.
ID doesn't claim to be deity based.
Could be a far away experiment checking the nature of evolution with
new life forms got lost in space and landed here. Pilots probably long
dead but lived long enough to fin
Proving ID would be like proving God exists-- And how does that HHGTTG quote go?
*poof* =-]
--
"'Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so
mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some
thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof
Anytime.
Sam wrote:
> Great reply, thanks
>
>
> On Jan 4, 2008 3:34 PM, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> You guess wrong, but basing your entire argument on an assertion that's
>> unprovable is consistent with ID.
>>
>> Well done
~~~
Great reply, thanks
On Jan 4, 2008 3:34 PM, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You guess wrong, but basing your entire argument on an assertion that's
> unprovable is consistent with ID.
>
> Well done.
>
> -Cameron
>
~~~
I think the focus is on unpredictability since mutation failure is
much higher than success
On Jan 4, 2008 3:30 PM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ... All three "evolutions" listed below are contained within the
> Theory of Evolution. There are not different or competing Theories of
>
... All three "evolutions" listed below are contained within the
Theory of Evolution. There are not different or competing Theories of
Evolution, there is only one, as The Theory is a container, a
collection of facts as it were.
Natural Selection acting on random mutations is an evolutionary proce
You guess wrong, but basing your entire argument on an assertion that's
unprovable is consistent with ID.
Well done.
-Cameron
Sam wrote:
> Guess you didn't read it.
>
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important
there goes the thread
On Jan 4, 2008 3:21 PM, William Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So is ID impossible or not provable?
>
> Not provable and ID Proponents aren't interested in producing or
> cannot produce a *single* repeatable experiment to prove it. Ask them.
> Go to the DI and ask them
Well, there is a growing clamor from many places around the world to
teach exactly that.
As is the "fact" we never landed a man on the moon.
On Jan 4, 2008 4:21 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It would be like teaching them that the Holocaust didn't happen just because
> some pe
> So is ID impossible or not provable?
Not provable and ID Proponents aren't interested in producing or
cannot produce a *single* repeatable experiment to prove it. Ask them.
Go to the DI and ask them to produce a single repeatable ID
experiment. Go on. I dare you.
> Creationism is based on the b
Guess you didn't read it.
Does Intelligent Design Conflict with Evolution?
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one
simply means "change over time," or even that living things are
related by common ancestry (Evolution #1 or Evolution #2), then
there is no inherent conflict bet
Jerry Johnson wrote:
> Although, I think that any decent science class should leave the
> students with an understanding of the process of science. There are
> real questions about evolution, the mechanisms and the changes to the
> theory over time (the evolution of evolution).
>
I agree - an u
Sam wrote:
> Isn't that what they said about evolution back in the day?
Actually... I think what they said about evolution back in the day was
similar to what they say today:
"Oh no! What ever shall we do?!?!?! This science stuff challenges our
religious belief system!"
The big difference b
William Bowen wrote:
[snip]
First you have to understand where I am coming from. Since I am not
convinced either way about evolution or ID/creationism, I am open to all
discussions. I do have certain beliefs but I like to challenge these
beliefs with the assumption that I am not always right.
On Jan 4, 2008 12:19 PM, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Specifically, the part that Cameron pointed too, as well as the section
> immediately above it, which asks "Is ID the same as Creationism?", then
> says: "ID attempts to find evidence for whether observations are the result
> of mutation
Look, Brian and I got into an argument a long time ago, but I would
hardly call it an explosion, and there's no way it was 500 million years
ago!
-Cam(eron)
Sam wrote:
> It mentions extensively the Cambrian explosion approximately 530
> million years ago
> Specifically this:
> the Cambrian Expl
> Bruce wrote:
> So the pattern I am already seeing on this thread is that it is OK to
> teach one theory, but not another?
You're confused over the use of the word "theory" and mixing the meanings.
Here are the 2 DISTINCT ways "theory" is being used:
(1.) Casually for contemplation or speculati
It mentions extensively the Cambrian explosion approximately 530
million years ago
Specifically this:
the Cambrian Explosion is an event in life's history over 500 million
years ago where nearly all the major body plans of animals appear in a
geological instant without any apparent evolutionary pre
Although, I think that any decent science class should leave the
students with an understanding of the process of science. There are
real questions about evolution, the mechanisms and the changes to the
theory over time (the evolution of evolution).
ID is not, from what I can tell, the way to pres
The core issue on CF-Community usually breaks down to the fact that both
Creationism and ID were born from religion and based on religious belief
while the theory of evolution was born from, and is based on, science.
So does ID belong in a school? Perhaps, as part of a Comparative
Religions cl
>It's a public schools job to teach accepted theory and science. ID is
>neither.
Exactly. It's a fundamental shift from what science is. The whole basic tenet
of scientific theory is to seek positive, natural proof for things...ID is the
exact opposite of both of these. It seeks to explain life
> So the pattern I am already seeing on this thread is that it is OK to
> teach one theory, but not another?
here we go again. what other theory would you like to be taught? ID?
Where is the 'theory' part of ID? Show me a repeatable experiment.
Show me some proof of 'irreducible complexity'.
I'll
ColdFusion Developer
SSTWebworks
4405 Oakshyre Way
Raleigh, NC. 27616
(919) 874-6229 (home)
(703) 220-2835 (cell)
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Sorge [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 3:33 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Oh dear God no.
So the pattern I
So the pattern I am already seeing on this thread is that it is OK to
teach one theory, but not another? I thought the point of educating was
to present both sides of an argument? So if this is the case, then why
not introduce both sides, pro and con Darwinism as well as both sides of
ID? After
Specifically, the part that Cameron pointed too, as well as the section
immediately above it, which asks "Is ID the same as Creationism?", then
says: "ID attempts to find evidence for whether observations are the result
of mutations, or if they were intelligently designed."
Science has produced a
The part where they took fantasy and tried to equate it to science.
On Jan 4, 2008 4:15 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That was interesting, what part scared you?
~|
Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and
That was interesting, what part scared you?
On Jan 4, 2008 11:37 AM, G Money <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No no nonNO!
>
> "The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators"
>
> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
