• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

'Kitzmiller v Dover' Judge's comment

Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Subduction Zone said:
Christ on a bicycle!
Click to expand...

I don't mean to be nitpicking here, but someone needs to point out to you that "Christ on a bicycle" is historically inaccurate since bicycles had not been yet been invented back in Christ's day.

It's not "Christ on a bicycle."

It's "Christ on a tricycle."
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sunstone said:
I don't mean to be nitpicking here, but someone needs to point out to you that "Christ on a bicycle" is historically inaccurate since bicycles had not been yet been invented back in Christ's day.

It's not "Christ on a bicycle."

It's "Christ on a tricycle."
Click to expand...
I thought that the unicycle was the evolutionary predecessor of the bicycle. My bad.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Hockeycowboy said:
which btw are established by.....scientists.
Click to expand...
How would you feel if scientists got to dictate what is religion? Or if an educator dictated what is medicine?
Theologians don't get to dictate the world and decide and what is and what is not in fields not related to theology. Don't like it? Oh well. I'd rather veterinarians not decide treatment options for veterans.
 
Q

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Hockeycowboy said:
Interesting statement made by the judge:


“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”


So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court; only that ID failed to meet the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...0d331ae/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.850079202b61

Comments? Ad Homs?
Click to expand...

The parameters of science are determined by the Scientific Method. Genuine scientists merely follow this method, they don't establish the parameters. The method indicates that one first comes up with a hypothesis concerning how reality works and then one provides a means of testing this hypothesis that can be reliably replicated by others.

Proponents of ID have come up with a hypothesis: There was an intelligent creator of the universe. Unfortunately none of them has yet to come up with a means of testing this hypothesis that can be replicated by others. Unless a reliable means of testing the ID hypothesis can be devised, the ID hypothesis can never be considered genuine science. Heck, it's even the case for things like the string hypothesis, which the media and sadly far too many scientists who know better, call String Theory. It is NOT a theory, it's a mere hypothesis that no one has yet to figure out how to reliably test. And unless someone can someday find a way to reliably test it, the string hypothesis will forever remain a mere hypothesis and will never be considered established science. The same holds true for the ID hypothesis and most religious and paranormal claims.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Hockeycowboy said:
Paranormal events happen all the time.
Click to expand...

"Christians" lose a lot of points with this sort
of statement, it having exactly the sound and
purely evidence-free nature as flying saucer
or Batboy sightings.

"Coast to Coast" is a good source for tips
on how to present claims of the specious.
Hollow earth, chupacabre, flying saucers, remote
viewing, and other such vapourware.

Just sayin'.
The more you fail the better,my pov,
but your doing a better job would make it
more fun, maybe a hint of challenge, even.
 
Q

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Hockeycowboy said:
the only reason it falls, is because of the current limits of science. It can't test for invisible, supernatural forces. However, some involved with paranormal research may disagree.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/54450/13-university-sanctioned-paranormal-research-projects

(Just thought this was interesting.)

Question: if science progresses to the point where it can detect / perceive advanced invisible life....what do you think that would do to the scientific establishment?
Click to expand...

If science eventually gets to the point where we can detect/perceive advanced life that is currently invisible to us the scientific establishment would be very busy investigating this extraordinary new discovery, which likely would lead to many additional extraordinary discoveries. Much in the same way that the scientific community reacted when it was discovered that an entire world exists on the microscopic level that had previously been invisible to us.

Why, what do you think the scientific establishment would do?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Hockeycowboy said:
Interesting statement made by the judge:


“After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science.”


So, what may actually be truth, was not the important issue to the court; only that ID failed to meet the parameters of science, which btw are established by.....scientists.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...0d331ae/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.850079202b61

Comments? Ad Homs?
Click to expand...
ID was never about science. ID is a political movement, not a scientific one.

When creationism was banned from public schools, they came up with “creation science.”

When “creation science” was banned from public schools, they cane up with ID.

At each stage, the intent was to have something in public school curricula that was as religious as possible while still holding up to court challenge. They haven’t figured out this balance yet.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Audie said:
Prove he had a tricycle.

https://www.dreamstime.com/photos-images/philippines-tricycle.html
Click to expand...
He did have a bike:

coab1-LST074719.jpg


In fact he had more than one:

76653_522355257792678_151927873_n.jpg


Oh well, at least one posted. If you hit the "Reply" button you can probably see the other one.
 
Hockeycowboy

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
gnostic said:
Yeah, on television and movies or written in novels - all works of fictions.

People that have claimed that paranormal and supernatural, are not right in the head.
Click to expand...
You mean like, Abraham Lincoln? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Sir Winston Churchill? Anwar Sadat? Eleanor Roosevelt? People like that?
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
Hockeycowboy said:
You mean like, Abraham Lincoln? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Sir Winston Churchill? Anwar Sadat? Eleanor Roosevelt? People like that?
Click to expand...

Say, that is a terrif opportunity for another ad hom lesson!

Doyle is credible on the paranormal because he was a good mystery
writer!

See, that is like a reverse ad hom!

Or a celeb endorsement.

Pretty shallow stuff, a very poor subdtitute for data,
reproducable results, or explanatoty theory.








 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
Hockeycowboy said:
You mean like, Abraham Lincoln? Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?
Sir Winston Churchill? Anwar Sadat? Eleanor Roosevelt? People like that?
Click to expand...
They are real people (I don't know about Sadat, because I don't know who is, so there is a question mark to if he is real person), but if they are right in the head, I don't know...what they choose to believe or not to believe, is entirely different question.

If they are superstitious people, then they are superstitious people. It doesn't make supernatural or paranormal "real".
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Audie said:
Say, that is a terrif opportunity for another ad hom lesson!

Doyle is credible on the paranormal because he was a good mystery
writer!

See, that is like a reverse ad hom!

Or a celeb endorsement.

Pretty shallow stuff, a very poor subdtitute for data,
reproducable results, or explanatoty theory.







Click to expand...
Explanatoty? Sounds like a feminine version of mansplaining, by a highly glamorous young woman.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
gnostic said:
They are real people (I don't know about Sadat, because I don't know who is, so there is a question mark to if he is real person), but if they are right in the head, I don't know...what they choose to believe or not to believe, is entirely different question.

If they are superstitious people, then they are superstitious people. It doesn't make supernatural or paranormal "real".
Click to expand...

Really? You have no clue about Abraham Lincoln and how his paranormal research saved this country? Here is a trailer to a documentary on the subject:

 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
gnostic said:
They are real people (I don't know about Sadat, because I don't know who is, so there is a question mark to if he is real person), but if they are right in the head, I don't know...what they choose to believe or not to believe, is entirely different question.

If they are superstitious people, then they are superstitious people. It doesn't make supernatural or paranormal "real".
Click to expand...
Sadat was one of the better leaders of Egypt: Anwar Sadat - Wikipedia
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top