Less Republicans believe in Evolution today than in 2009

Ishmael Pequod said:
Says you. By observing natural phenomena there is evidence of a superior intelligence according to Einstein.
Click to expand...

No, not say's I. Say's the scientific method. You are aware that it is possible for scientist to hold beliefs in that which is not science, don't you?

I believe in God. I believe Christ died upon the cross for my sins. I believe that God is the ultimate source of life everywhere and anywhere and none of that has anything to do with science. These are precious beliefs to me that I cannot, nor would not, use science to explain. That is not the purpose of science.
 
Superfreak said:
ROFLMAO... another fucking lie from our resident coward. For ONCE... quote what I said that you think is an attack... don't 'paraphrase'... go grab the quote. Post it on here. Let everyone decide which of us is correct.

You have consistently accused me of attacking science, yet have not shown ONE example of where I did so. Not one.

Which is why you try and lump me together with PMP... because you KNOW you are a liar and that is your way to try and put me on your level of nonsense.
Click to expand...
it is because for him, science has a political element.....it must bend to comply with his beliefs or he rejects its consideration as "science".......does it prove AGW?......then it is science.....does it disprove it?....then it is not......does it disprove the humanity of the unborn?.....then it is science.....does it prove it?......then it is not......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no, it would be a statement of faith.....and by the way, when I said intelligent scientists would believe in a creator I excepted present company.......
Click to expand...
That is correct. It would be a statement of faith and not a scientific one.

As for your Parthian shot....how many times do we have to tell you PiMP....flattery will get you know where with us! :)
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Think about what you're saying and think about what I am saying. Science has nothing to say about the supernatural because science only models the natural world and it can neither prove nor disprove supernatural causation. Science simply cannot explain the supernatural. Science can only demonstrate natural causation. You can use science to explain that some phenomena has a natural explanation that others credit as having a supernatural one. You cannot use science (or any methodology for that matter) to disprove a supernatural explanation however. If you don't believe me go ahead and try it. That is why supernatural explanations are prohibited in science.
Click to expand...

We CAN use science to disprove a supernatural explanation because we can use science to explain that some phenomena has a natural explanation. Your statements are contradictory. For instance, James Randi proved the claims of supernatural causation/explanation by Uri Geller and other psychics to be false by simply showing how they could be achieved naturally and setting up tests that falsified their abilities. We could have tested Oral Roberts claims of a supernatural healing power. It's only when they fail to make falsifiable claims that the supernatural cannot be disproven.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top