Here's where we can agree. ID should be tought in Philosophy class not Science Class.

You make my point eXactly...WHO..YOU GIZZMOE?...Decided that SCIENCE is the HOLY GRAIL of Knowledge....do you understand now dang lol...it goes both ways damn.Believe me
I understand the fear here...um...uh where do we put it....Philisophy?Science?Drama?....the point is to have students have exposure to ALL aspects of Life on our planet and let them decide...

Hmm, try this for a dark age (watch ALL the videos). It's about the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve Bank among other things.

Here

Back on topic: The_Indignity_of_Atheism.

Please read carefully before drawing incorrect conclusions. :yep:

Science exists much longer than the Bible.

Is that really what you want? I think that you want them to be primarily exposed to the aspects of Christian thinking. I bet that many devout Christians wouldn´t like to send their kids to schools where there also teach them, without any prejudice, the aspects of Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism or what the Aborigines think about how the world was created.

"He <G-d> looked in the Torah and created the universe." - Zohar, Teruma 161b

Just stating otherwise. :|\\

Damn, you win. Again! :nope: :88) ;)

But even without that quote, if G-d does exist, then science is the study of the physical world created by G-d.

The real question is which came first - G-d or science?

But no one's stopping you from reviewing the Science of God for a contrary opinion to yours.

Speaking of the book's author, I found this which discusses your previous argument about not teaching ID or similar in public schools: God in School.

That´s a question I don´t ask myself, because, for me, gods don´t exist.

And your proof?

Sorry, but I won´t get into that discussion, it would lead to absolutely nothing.

*sigh* Ok, I will. :)

[Warning, contains some generalisations! ;)]

Of course I can´t prove that there aren´t any gods. But the problem with religions is, there are so many of them. Some don´t have gods, some are monotheistic, some polytheistic. Like you said earlier, most of them contradict each other. There´s even huge disagreement between the different Christian branches. But of course everyone thinks that their religion is right.

As a true believer you have to dismiss other religions. You can´t be a devout Christian and nevertheless accept that Jews don´t see Jesus as their personal saviour. You can´t be Buddhist but yet somehow accept the idea that Christans and Jews say that one god created the Earth and everything. All you can do as a true believer is to tolerate and respect other religions, but you can never accept their ideas.

In conclusion, it´s impossible to find out which religion is right. Maybe even all of them are wrong. But they can´t all be right. So at one point I simply decided that the only logical thing for me to do is to dismiss all religions. I respect people who are religious, but that´s about it.

Fair enough.

But..............................

:p

One day, when you have an hour or so to meditate without interruption, don't. :smug:

Instead, look around you, look out the window or even - gasp - step outside. Marvel at the sky, the earth, the animals, the plants (even a single blade of grass - think about the photosynthesis), the materials we employ to produce huts or office towers, computers, cars, fridges, clothing, food and what not. Then think about the same and different varieties located in the heart of Africa or Asia or South America or Japan. Pop any oceanographic nature documentary into your DVD player and take in the ecosystems and the myriads of species spread throughout the world. Next sit down and be inspired (again, enough National Geographic DVDs around) by your senses, sight, smell, hearing, taste, and fell. Search the web for Hubble telescope images. Think of the complexity of your digestive, cardiovascular, muscle, nervous or skeletal systems.

Now go to a major Museum, view a Rembrandt, Renoir, Gauguin or similar and try to honestly convince yourself that any single one of these paintings - just 1, even in another museum elsewhere in the world - was produced by a random tossing of different oil colors onto the canvas by the artist - or anyone else, for that matter. (I especially did not give examples of artists such as Jackson Pollock for reasons of irony :p ). Just one single classic artwork.

Enjoy the museum. Take your time.

I like Jackson Pollock. I also like Milton Babbitt. Ultra-serialism is very enlightening. Anyway, back to your rapidly-circularizing discussion.

Of course, paintings and buildings are designed - by humans. The flaw in the argument is that, because man-made complex items are designed, anything that is complex must have been designed.



The difference is science's side is the side of observable phenomena, and it changes as required by the available evidence. Science adapts to evidence with the goal of being as correct as possible.

The other side merely wants science to be subordinate to their interpretation of a specific book (which book depends on the religion, e.g. muslims don't like this branch of science either). In order to appear scientific to those with limited experience with science, and to attack theories that do not fit into their gospel, they resort to underhanded practices like citing real scientific articles, misquoting, and misrepresenting the evidence (based on the mostly correct assumption that readers will take the reference to a scientific article as proof of correctness, without checking if it was quoted correctly, or examining the article's claims). One of their standard techniques is to take some scientific controversy about a minor detail of some theory, and then use that to insinuate an entire field of science is invalid. Examples were given earlier in this thread. It should not surprise anyone that the scientific community does not appreciate such liars.