On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 18:36:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:

On Oct 5, 7:59*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009 16:51:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote:
snipped for the redemption of Usenet





Everything else is religion or philosophy.

I agree - global warming, peak oil, wind/solar energy. *:)

~~ now come one - you just knew that was coming :) *~~

The point was the relevance of creationism in science classes or,
indeed, in public schools. No relevance, should not be discussed except
perhaps as an example of religious superstition.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

There's many things that science can't explain, Harry.

I myself haven't seen anything in the Bible that would discount dyed-
in-the-wool, rock hard, chiseled-in-stone proof of scientific
anything.

however, I don't see science being the absolute authority on the
beginning of mankind, or beyond *to before the Universes.

So, until science can present solid proof of origins of creation (big
bang theory included) I'll remain a Creationist that believes in
"Intelligent Design"

besides, *even if you leave out the Judao-christian belief system, it
really does no harm to look at another point of view in school as an
option, because I never hear evolution as being called "fact" but I
hear it called "theory" a lot. And weather answerable, or unanswerable
questions, there's too many "what if's" with theory.

"What-if's" of theory are usually subject to Popper's Theory of
Falsification, or are a part of the logic that determines whether
theory is falsifiable. *This is the tool that opponents of intelligent
Design employ to challenge Creationism or ID, Tim. *And it's been used
successfully in the court room to enjoin school districts to restrict
the teaching of Intelligent Design. *Since aspects of the metaphysical
are not capable of being falsifiable, then the metaphysical does not
qualify as having proper scientific foundation and Intelligent Design
consequently has no room in the classroom, according to the courts.
Popper's Falsifiability is a tidy, proven method for assessing the
soundness of theory; but, faith and science are two different,
disparate universes.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
* * * * * * *-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

Yes.
"guilty until proven innocent"

?;^ )

Or at least until the black swan is discovered :). I'm not as much
puzzled now as I was in time past by the insistence of some
irreligionists and iconoclasts that science necessarily nullifies
faith (as in the practice of a personal faith), where the term
"superstition" is pejoratively applied to its application. To contend
that science "undresses" faith is akin to trying to call a trump suit
in a game of chess. It's meaningless.

But, I'll have to confess, there are some devotee's of the Christian
faith that flirt with the ludicrous, a la Ken Ham.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access