Science, Creation & EvolutionCreation vs. Evolution, general discussionJM: Alien possession can be scientific as well if there is evidence to support it. The problem is that both alien possession and ID have no supporting scientific evidence. You need to read the full decision. The judge actually agreed with you (sort of) regarding ID in that he agreed it could be scientific. What he discouraged was the overtly religious backing of the disclaimer since to date, no scientific evidence could be mustered in favor of ID. JM: Yes and no. The divisions of time as we have set them is manmade you are 100% correct. Time (however anyone chooses to divide it) started at the instant of the big expansion. JM: Actually science thinks it has explained very little. What science has explained quite clearly is that the earth is old and evolution has happened. How evolution happens, what has happened on earth in that expanse of time is full of unknowns and interesting problems. JM: All scientists think outside the box. For example, Darwin thought outside the box. The Curie's and Becquerel thought outside the box. Wegener thought outside the box. Agassiz (a creationist) thought outside the box and realized that the geologic record could not be harmonized with a global flood. Lyell, Hutton all thought outside the box. Thanks to those thinkers we have moved beyond debates about the age of the earth. It's only a few who stayed in the box who want to argue these points, the rest of us have moved on and are thinking outside new, more exciting boxes. JM: I've repeatedly answered your question. For whatever reason, you don't like my answer. Debating creationists is valuable only when they are attempting to promote a socio-political agenda. It is always worthwhile in these cases to point out the scientific (and IMO the theological) backruptcy of their agenda. Scientifically, there is no debate, but politically ye-creationists are very active from inside their 100+ year old box. JM: I'm sorry if I trouble you. My purpose for joining this board is to discuss the relevant socio-political issues masking behind the terminology of creationism and ID. I've been discussing these issues and politically active trying to stop pseudoscience for over 10 years. You seem to be rational and willing to debate in an open manner. I simply view science and religion as two separate and entirely compatible spheres. You seem to mistrust science. Can we move beyond questioning motives and towards a healthy discussion? Cheers Joe Meert |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame