|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Randall WitkowskiRandall Witkowski Date: Mar 24, 2008 15:07
CONFLICT between science and religion is an old story. Up till the 16th
century the accepted religious dogma was that the sun and the planets
all revolved around the earth. In 1543 Copernicus proposed a new system
with the earth and the planets moving around the sun. This aroused
strong religious antagonism at first. It took the better part of a
hundred years and the support of Galileo’s telescopic observations and
Kepler’s mathematical analysis of the planets’ movements to win general
recognition.
Until the 18th century, Western religions held that the earth had been
created a mere 6,000 years ago. Hutton in 1785 proposed the theory of
uniformitarianism, which demanded far longer periods of time for
geological changes. Again religious controversy was raised for some 50
years, but Lyell’s field work and systematization of geologic strata
finally won common agreement to the idea of a much older earth.
|
| Show full article (2.12Kb) |
|
| | 857 Comments |
|
|
Author: Mike PainterMike Painter Date: Mar 24, 2008 15:18
Randall Witkowski wrote:
> CONFLICT between science and religion is an old story.
> An organized crusade is currently seen in efforts to downgrade the
> teaching of evolution in the public schools through laws requiring
> that creation be given equal time. In the most recent legal skirmish,
> a federal judge decided that
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: SkyEyesSkyEyes Date: Mar 24, 2008 15:24
On Mar 24, 3:07 pm, Randall Witkowski
kiddiepix.com> wrote:> CONFLICT between science and religion is an old story. Up till the 16th
> century the accepted religious dogma was that the sun and the planets
> all revolved around the earth. In 1543 Copernicus proposed a new system
> with the earth and the planets moving around the sun. This aroused
> strong religious antagonism at first. It took the better part of a
> hundred years and the support of Galileo's telescopic observations and
> Kepler's mathematical analysis of the planets' movements to win general
> recognition.
>
> Until the 18th century, Western religions held that the earth had been
> created a mere 6,000 years ago. Hutton in 1785 proposed the theory of
> uniformitarianism, which demanded far longer periods of time for
> geological changes. Again religious controversy was raised for some 50
> years, but Lyell's field work and systematization of geologic strata
> finally won common agreement to the idea of a much older earth.
>
> Up till the mid-19th century the Biblical account of divine creation of
> man was commonly believed. Darwin's theory of the origin of species by ...
|
| Show full article (3.94Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Ips-SwitchIps-Switch Date: Mar 24, 2008 15:26
> Randall Witkowski wrote:
>> CONFLICT between science and religion is an old story.
>
You're wasting your time with yet another JABRIOL sock-puppet copying and
pasting WTS and creationist crap all over these NGs.
NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.150.243.167 = JABRIOL
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ verizon.net
X-Trace: trnddc07 1206396476 141.150.243.167 (Mon, 24 Mar 2008 18:07:56 EDT)
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: mariposas rand mair fhealmariposas rand mair fheal Date: Mar 24, 2008 15:30
In article newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
"Mike Painter" sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> By definition this can not be science which *MUST* accept evidence and base
> their decisions on that evidence.
and who decides what is evidence?
arf meow arf - i dont like squishy
i think i hit a wookie on the expressway
nobody could do that much decoupage
without calling on the powers of darkness
|
| |
| 114 Comments |
|
|
Author: Randall WitkowskiRandall Witkowski Date: Mar 24, 2008 15:36
From the testimony given in the trial, it is manifest that the
scientific evidence for creation was not really presented in clear
confrontation with evolution. Instead, it was lost to sight in clashes
over side issues, particularly two tenets of creationism that had been
written into the law:
1. That creation took place only a few thousand years ago.
2. That all geologic strata were formed by the Biblical Deluge.
Neither of these dogmas is really crucial to the central question of
whether living things were created or not. They are merely doctrines
held by the members of a few churches.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Randall WitkowskiRandall Witkowski Date: Mar 24, 2008 15:38
mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
> In article newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Mike Painter" sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> By definition this can not be science which *MUST* accept evidence and base
>> their decisions on that evidence.
>
Must Science accept evidence. When evidence for a God is presented, it
gets rejected by science.
> and who decides what is evidence?
>
>
the good ole science club I imagine.
|
| |
| 28 Comments |
|
|
Author: RobibnikoffRobibnikoff Date: Mar 24, 2008 15:46
"Randall Witkowski" kiddiepix.com> wrote in message
news:H3WFj.3438$Qv5.2397@trnddc03...> mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
>> In article newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>> "Mike Painter" sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> By definition this can not be science which *MUST* accept evidence and
>>> base their decisions on that evidence.
>>
>
> Must Science accept evidence. When evidence for a God is presented, it
> gets rejected by science.
What evidence would that be?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA Knight!
#1557
|
| |
| 67 Comments |
|
|
Author: mariposas rand mair fhealmariposas rand mair fheal Date: Mar 24, 2008 15:55
> "Randall Witkowski" kiddiepix.com> wrote in message
> news:H3WFj.3438$Qv5.2397@trnddc03...>> mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
>>> In article newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> "Mike Painter" sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> By definition this can not be science which *MUST* accept evidence and
>>>> base their decisions on that evidence.
>>>
>>
>> Must Science accept evidence. When evidence for a God is presented, it
>> gets rejected by science.
>
> What evidence would that be?
who decides what is evidence?
|
| Show full article (0.84Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: VizardVizard Date: Mar 24, 2008 16:02
Robibnikoff wrote:
> "Randall Witkowski" kiddiepix.com> wrote in message
> news:H3WFj.3438$Qv5.2397@trnddc03...>> mariposas rand mair fheal wrote:
>>> In article newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
>>> "Mike Painter" sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> By definition this can not be science which *MUST* accept evidence and
>>>> base their decisions on that evidence.
>> Must Science accept evidence. When evidence for a God is presented, it
>> gets rejected by science.
>
> What evidence would that be?
What evidence would you like to see?
What would you accept?
|
| |
| 14 Comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
