Expelled

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by roli

So let me see if I'm getting this, science which means "knowledge" is not science if it there are unanswerable facts..intersting,
I guess it would be called ignorance...not a friend of science ,at least one easily admitted

Science certainly has it's place in our complex world, but it's not without gaps and theories, guess work, ignorance. I mean just for example,has science got a full grasp on the answers of the intricacies of the human cell. In their study of it, have they contemplated it's origin because of it's complexity , or do they keep their head in the sand and just say nothing , for fear of being made a laughing stock.

Of course science is limited, and we don't know much more than we do know. But the issue isn't whether it's right, the issue is whether it's science. What you're saying is that non-science should be taught as science. Wrong. You are advocating for religion to be taught as science. Now see why scientists are so opposed to it?

(btw, although science is limited and wrong, it's the most right and least limited we have. Religion, in contrast, has been consistently wrong, and has no method to get more right.)

The evolution in which I refer to, that is in which the text books refer

Which textbook says that evolution means life coming from non-life?

So tell me , who are the proponents who write these teaching materials on evolution found in schools across our nation, I don't mean about the living organisms changing within species, I mean the teaching material that states, millions and millions of years ago, based on our scientific assumptions and mere speculation, there was a big bang and that we evolved from @#$%#%@^**(&**(&>>>>>>...... into living and advanced oragnisms. Something to that affect.

there aren't any. Why can you not grasp that nothing you are saying has anything to do with evolution? Talking to you is like my kids--I get tired of repeating myself.

Do you agreee or diaagree that these books in schools around the country are teaching a theory of evolution with inummerable errors and guess work .. it;s amzing they are published

Compltely disagree. It's the same level of knowledge as all other science--the best currently established knowledge we have. You seem to be opposed to science in general.

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by roli

Do you think Jesus defied all the theories of science and natural laws,when he raised people from the dead, or healed them. That is if you agree that Jesus lived.
He confused and totally silenced the higher thinkers in his day and made their god wisdom and knowledge to be nohting more then idol babblings.
Maybe that will have to happen to silence the professing wise in today's age, what a sobering day that would be,I would;nt want to miss it.

Religion can argue with science, or at least defy it's reasoning and logic or it can be it's best freind.
Maybe you need a miracle to confuse all your theories and find tuned scientific reasoning.

O.K., great, now just persuade us that any of this happened.

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Actually, science is used to explain this thing we call existence, not to create it.

True, and I applaud them. With that in mind, is it possible to conceive the engineering that allowed our mind to discover all the wonderful complexities and all the while realize it wasn't by accident? Think about our ability to think independently and why we are even having this discussion at all. If we were just robotic meat, then our conscientiousness and the value of life wouldn't exist. It's in our ability to realize our conscientiousness that gives our ability to be aware of independence and God.

[Women_Of_Reason]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

If we were just robotic meat, then our conscientiousness and the value of life wouldn't exist.

Why not?

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by mball1297

Actually, science is used to explain this thing we call existence, not to create it.

It's a little of both, actually.

[Jeremy Mason]

Originally Posted by Women_Of_Reason

Why not?

You should ask your toaster that question. When you get tired of asking, you' should have your answer.

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

True, and I applaud them. With that in mind, is it possible to conceive the engineering that allowed our mind to discover all the wonderful complexities and all the while realize it wasn't by accident?

Replace "realize" with "believe" and I think that would be a perfectly valid way of approaching science, even if I personally don't adhere to it.

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

Think about our ability to think independently and why we are even having this discussion at all. If we were just robotic meat, then our conscientiousness and the value of life wouldn't exist. It's in our ability to realize our conscientiousness that gives our ability to be aware of independence and God.

Define "robotic meat". If you're talking about the absence of soul, the "breath of God" or some other religious belief, then I disagree with your statement. If you're talking about consciousness, empathy or other arguably human traits, then I don't think they necessitate God.

[Women_Of_Reason]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Mason

You should ask your toaster that question. When you get tired of asking, you' should have your answer.

A toaster is not robotic meat (as you say).

Still waiting for an answer...