It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by Murgatroid
I believe the nearest-to-true statement might be that "certain scientists are as dogmatic as certain fervent adherents to certain religons."
Actual science is simply making educated observations and trying to prove them in the real world. Humans are fallable. Science tries really, really hard not to be. That doesn't mean that some people trying to practice science aren't fallable.
Originally posted by BriGuyTM90
Redshift and the Doppler effect. You are directly observing the expansion of the universe. Technically all you have to do is look up at the night sky.
Originally posted by Pinke
Darwinism does not = the current theory of evolution.
Last side note ... If intelligent design can satisfy the Essential Criteria
then by all means bring it into the science class room.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MrXYZ
But if there was evidence, let's say in the unique proportion of the Earth, moon and sun, which would prove intelligent design and an original intent, WOULD science be self-correcting ie: if the answer is, at least in part "because God designed it this way"..?
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by Murgatroid
I believe the nearest-to-true statement might be that "certain scientists are as dogmatic as certain fervent adherents to certain religons."
Actual science is simply making educated observations and trying to prove them in the real world. Humans are fallable. Science tries really, really hard not to be. That doesn't mean that some people trying to practice science aren't fallable.
The difference is, science is self-correcting. For example the original abiogenesis experiment (maggots...) failed and was debunked...and rightfully so.
Religion on the other hand can't admit mistakes. They still insist in talking snakes (complete and utter nonsense), global floods (demonstrably false!) and people surviving inside whales (physically impossible).
If there's one thing history teaches us it's that only those who adapt survive...given that most religions don't adapt, it's pretty clear what their fait is. The same happened to hundreds of previous religions. They can either adapt or continue to throw logic overboard and remain dogmatic.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by MrXYZ
I recommend that you undertake a much more in depth and thorough investigation and analysis of the situation, including the degree to which Biblical prophecy was fullfilled in Christ who's conception, birth, and Great Work of the cross were framed in the motion of the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets and stars. You would be utterly astonished before you were even half way through, provided you could approach the investigation free from ANY sort of prior c conception or negative bias ie: with a totally open mind.
edit on 28-8-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit
Christ who's conception, birth, and Great Work of the cross were framed in the motion of the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets and stars.
Originally posted by HIWATT
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by Baddogma
reply to post by Murgatroid
I believe the nearest-to-true statement might be that "certain scientists are as dogmatic as certain fervent adherents to certain religons."
Actual science is simply making educated observations and trying to prove them in the real world. Humans are fallable. Science tries really, really hard not to be. That doesn't mean that some people trying to practice science aren't fallable.
The difference is, science is self-correcting. For example the original abiogenesis experiment (maggots...) failed and was debunked...and rightfully so.
Religion on the other hand can't admit mistakes. They still insist in talking snakes (complete and utter nonsense), global floods (demonstrably false!) and people surviving inside whales (physically impossible).
If there's one thing history teaches us it's that only those who adapt survive...given that most religions don't adapt, it's pretty clear what their fait is. The same happened to hundreds of previous religions. They can either adapt or continue to throw logic overboard and remain dogmatic.
Science is neither self-adapting or self-correcting.
It is manipulated for special interest, which ironically, is the same thing that happens with religion.
Bill Nye is hardly an authority on what or what not to teach someone's children.
Originally posted by rwfresh
Your theory of evolution equates to "change". Yes things change. Are seasons now examples of evolution?
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including species, individual organisms and molecules such as DNA and proteins
What about aging?
No one is declaring change to be a theory.
But i see this when Darwinists are pinned up against the wall..
They start declaring EVERY observable change over time as a demonstration of "evolution".
In this definition evolution is a label given to the underlying phenomenon of change.
This isn't something to even be considered science.
Caveman observed and documented change.
Everyone does everyday.
If that is all evolution is than why the attack on Christians over it?
I don't know any Christians that would argue that things change over time.
What's is there to even be taught about it?
Class today we are going to discuss the TRUTH of evolution. Evolution is change. You are now a scientist. End of lesson.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Serdgiam
Yes, but if a certain cosmological outcome or configuration realized in human history could ONLY have occured by design and from a first/last cause imbedded into the creation of creation, science would be rather hard pressed in the face of that kind of causation by original intent to say simply that it's a mystery which we do not yet have the science to sufficiently understand, right? They would then be forced into a position where they would either have to admit it, deny it, or completely ignore it, even if it, the information is right in front of us day after day, night after night.. wouldn't that be amuzing, to be confounded like that, without any other possibly explanation than OMG, it's God!
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Christ who's conception, birth, and Great Work of the cross were framed in the motion of the Earth, Sun, Moon, planets and stars.
What on earth does that even mean???
Originally posted by GafferUK1981
May I also comment that I am fed up of reading the following statement on religious topics.
"if you read the bible with a open mind"
Please do not write that, it is a terrible statement, just say what you mean which is.
"if you read the bible and chose to believe every word"
I have an open mind, I believe in UFO's and certain conspiracy theories but I simply can't believe in something so irrational and disproven as religion.