On Jun 16, 1:49 pm, "thomas p."
yahoo.com> wrote:> "Jeff Strickland"
verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelsenews:lzu5k.40474$lE3.17094@trnddc05...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>> "thomas p."
yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:4855f680$0$56780$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...>
>>> "Jeff Strickland"
verizon.net> skrev i en meddelelse
>>>news:uCd5k.15727$8q2.366@trnddc02...>
>>>>> In article
,
>>>>> Hosea Prieto yahoo.com> wrote:>
>>>>>> buckeye wrote:
>>>>>>> Approved by a 94-3 vote, the so-called "Science Education Act" (SB
>>>>>>> 733)
>>>>>>> allows public school teachers to use "supplemental materials" when
>>>>>>> discussing evolution.
>
>>>>>>> Americans United and other groups contend that those "supplemental
>>>>>>> materials" are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other
>>>>>>> items
>>>>>>> produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries. The measure is
>>>>>>> being
>>>>>>> pushed by the Louisiana Family Forum, the Discovery Institute and
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> Religious Right forces.
>
>>>>>> Are anti-evolution materials necessarily religious?
>
>>>>> It is hard to imagine any reason for opposing evolution other than some
>>>>> kind of religious belief which is incompatible with it.
>
>>>> On the other hand, God could have created all, and the best that science
>>>> can do is question how He did it, and arrive at evolution as the
>>>> mechanism He employed.
>
>>> For science to question "how He did it", it would first have to establish
>>> that there was such a being.
>
>> It is, therefore it is. How did it get here? That's the question.
>
>> It does not demand faith in God to want to know how it got here.
>
> It requires faith to say "goddidit".
>
> Science can
>
>> ignore God and search for how life was formed, or science can accept God
>> and search for how He formed life. At the end of the day, the key that
>> unlocks the mystery is the same.
>
> How does science accept god before there is any obective evidence that there
> is such a thing. How does science ignore something for which there is no
> evidence?
>
>
>
>>> Even God would know better than to reinvent the wheel everytime He
>>>> wanted something new.
>
>>> You know more about god than I do.
>
>> Perhaps.
>
> And perhaps you have evidence that there is a god and that he is likely to
> "know better" about anything, otherwise you are talking about nothing but
> ideas in your head. In conclusion science does not ignore, confirm or deny
> the existence of any god including the one you claim knowledge of. It can
> only deal with objective, testable evidence, so far none has been presented
> or encountered for any god.- Hide quoted text -
For that matter a scientist might theorise that the universe does not
exist, in view of the fact that science leaves no possibility that it
could have had a beginning. A well-known scientific dictum propounds
that "nothing comes from nothing. Nothing ever could," (actually it's
a song in Sound of Music but it's also in the laws of thermodynamics).
Even science can battle with logic.
RhymeCon
> - Show quoted text -
