On 8/23/06, Chesty Puller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not a simple thought at all. The problem is that your bias against > religion does not allow you to consider alternative viewpoints. It > appears > that you think that science already knows everything that should be > taught, > and that it's right. Let's assume that evolution is right and that it > was > created by God. That would be both ID and evolution, and leaving part of > it > out wouldn't be correect, would it?
I don't have a biased against religion. I think religion is amazingly beneficial for millions of people. Science does NOT know everything, but it does know what it knows, and what it knows, should be taught in science classes. What it doesn't know, aka creationism, should not. It's so simple. Your creationism is a wonderful story...but...it...aint...science! A few years ago (like only 5 years) I was taught in my college astronomy > class that the universe is about 13 billion years old. Today the figure > is > 15.3 billion or something new... scientists discovered some previously > unknown data and have revised the figure. Yes, their theories were based > on measurable phenomenon, but it seems they were wrong. That is awesome! Tomorrow, if science finds scientific evidence supporting God, they should start teaching it. Guess what? They won't, because you can't, because it aint science! See how we keep coming back to this? Science searches for explanations - cause and effect. The effect is the > existance of life on Earth - how did it come to be in its form today. > Evolution is one possible cause. Another is ID. Both are possible causes > of the effect. Ergo, you have science. You are working forward, science works backwards. You start with a God, then try to show he exists. We start with what we have today, and start following the trail backwards. Fossils, evolved species, early ancestors....on and on...and eventually we get to the beginning of time. Science pretty much falls short there. ID posits, "Hey, lets make up a God to explain the shortcoming". Science can't measure that...so it ignores it. You want it to take it up. But how? What experiments would suggest we run to start proving God, scientifically? Assume that ID is actually right. Wouldn't that make it science? Your > assumption that it's wrong is not based on any proof, just your gut > feeling. > Evolution is based on 100+ years of observation. Creationism is based on > 3000+ years of written documents, in many different forms, from many > different cultures. Guess what? We're just another culture with a > creation > story. It is NOT a gut feeling! ARGH. The only way ID could be proven right tomorrow, would be if God herself came down to earth and PROVED to us she created the universe. She would have to PROVE it. We would have to observe it. Then, and only then, could it become science. Observable, repeatable, predictable. Ten thousand years from now, scientists will know that what we really are is > light crystals bent around magnetic iron cores, and will laugh at the > primitive people who thought that life came up out of the water and > magically transformed itself into humans over time. They'll discount > evolution altogether. > Actually, they would look at the body of evidence present in our current time, and understand completely why intelligent people of the time would believe 100% in evolution. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:213996 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
