Reply to Shtal (Interesting facts, for believers) - Page 17

Yes Travels, science will continue to "evolve" and humans will continue to be human and gain "knowledge" by "observations". The only difference with humans gaining "knowledge" by "observation" is by one of two ways - deductive and inductive thinking processes involving "observation". You, the mainstream, take the deductive, I, obviously take the inductive. You think humans create knowledge by "observation", I think humans discover knowledge by "observation". No biggy right ? Obviously there is according to those school policy court cases you posted. Those are not cases to debunk "intelligent design" or a "creator" - they are cases to discourage inductive thinking and reasoning in school curriculum.

Science CANNOT debunk "intelligent design" or a "creator" Travels, science is doing the opposite, science IS proving "intelligent design" or a "creator".

Let's look at the earth is flat and CC deal. Do you know how long people thought the earth was flat ? When and who said the Earth was flat Travels? Do you know how a flat Earth was debunked ? What did Isaiah (yes in the Bible) say about the Earth from the very beginning ? Coincidence of fact ? I think not.

Let me be clear (lol), I could care less what anyone thinks, I'm not here to change anyones opinion on mankind. I'm posting, be it known, how/what I think.

Well you damned sure got your wish BabyEagle.

Actually BE4U and I aren't all that far apart.  The ending maybe, but pretty much all the rest, she said it well.

See Travels, you can list all the constants known to man from the dawn of the age of Science until today. And like BE4U points out, or at least that is how I take it,  it is always the interpretation of the observation that can be in error.

The constants are always there, with or without a human to discover them and ultimately, people  seek to understand them with Laws and Theories. It is just what people do when they try to find meaning in the chaos of the universe. Some constants man believed in, as history tells us, weren't constants at all. Therein lies the contamination I speak of.

So, all this bickering back and forth to prove somebody is smarter about science, (atheists) to prove somebody is dumb in science (God believers) is just an exercise in futility.

Back to the chicken and the egg, again. I hope you can follow. I do like to see if the crumbs I drop are picked up with a discerning eye. If the crumbs were just followed without trying to guess where I am going, it might just come a bit easier.  This isn't trick science. It is just SCIENCE.

The egg came before the chicken.

So you said. Care to explain why you think so?

Simple evolution, the egg had to come first.
It predates chickens

I think the the chicken came before the chicken egg. Although I think fish eggs came before the chicken.  LMAO

LOL, well it isn't that simple.... evolution. It is a theory, is all. You can't know what you said as fact Moons, even though you state it as fact. That is a fact.

How could that be,  chickens did what?
Live birth, mitosis, the stork?

Adoption........:)

Bee,
creatures were reproducing by producing eggs before chickens became chickens.

Constants are constants, they don't change.  Our perception of them can change, but the laws remain the same, whether we name them or not.

BE, this is where your logic goes off the rails "Science CANNOT debunk "intelligent design" or a "creator" Travels, science is doing the opposite, science IS proving "intelligent design" or a "creator".  Science is not attempting to debunk anything, nor prove anything!  Science is finding explanations to questions we raise as to our surroundings.  Science deals with reality, with facts, with observations, testing and confirmation.  Creation deals conformation of their dogma.  You cannot have a starting point and then set out to prove that you're right, especially when ALL of the evidence points in a completely different direction.  Now, if you choose to believe it anyway, based on your faith alone, nobody should have a problem with that.  What people object to are the restrictions placed on the whole of society in order to conform to your particular belief, that you hold on faith alone.  You cannot legislate your morality when you are not being harmed in any way.  People have the right to live their lives according to their own conscience, not what you've deemed to be "proper".  We all have irrational thoughts in one form or another.  I have many irrational fears that I've been fighting all of my life.  But I don't make the world conform so I can feel a balm, that's not the way it works.  And even if the majority agreed, that still wouldn't make it right to suppress one person.  That's what this is all about and you've twisted it to be persecution, it's not.

Funny thing is, you never read about any court cases on the Creationist sites, do you?  Have you ever wondered why that's the only thing they're not flaunting?  Because they can't twist it, the rulings are in black and white and cannot be "interpreted".  And in every single case, they've lost.  Every single one since the Scopes Trial, they've lost.  Because their claims have NO merit, not one little scrap of evidence that is considered worthy of a mention, period.  And what they're really doing is destroying themselves, because the more they bring it up and the more it's dissected and examined, the more it will fail, as will faith in general.  They just don't know when to leave well enough alone, literally.