IndyDDR.com

itt no faith

Potter wrote:itt no faith

I'm sorry, but faith and religion have no place in a discussion about science.

faith =/= religion

OrangeLounger wrote:faith =/= religion

keyword "and"

Union or intersection

danc1005 wrote:

OrangeLounger wrote:faith =/= religion

keyword "and"

What I meant was, faith can be placed in science.

Random note: many users of this forum only use punctuation when they're trying to make valid points or seem informative, as proven in this thread and many others. It's nice, while it lasts.

OrangeLounger wrote:What I meant was, faith can be placed in science.

Faith can be placed in the scientific method, but science itself often benefits from a healthy dose of skepticism and an open mind.

And I agree that it's easier to have a discussion when people try to be grammatically correct. It's easy enough to misunderstand people's meaning on the intarwebz without people intentionally making it harder by talking about science in lolspeak. But I think the real reason people use punctuation in a discussion is because they want to sound smart

im in ur stat govermints, alowin aborshuns

OrangeLounger wrote:im in ur stat govermints, alowin aborshuns

gud

BigBadOrc wrote:and you lost me on the difference between the theory of evolution and the science of evolution... please explain

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
ask me any questions you have after reading that and any of the sources/suggested reading on there

or.. more to the point.. can i imply from your post that you are advocating intelligent design as an equally plausible alternative to the "theory of evolution" ?

I don't believe I am advocating it as one in my post, please show me where I did so

hascoolnickname wrote:I don't believe I am advocating it as one in my post, please show me where I did so

Even acknowledging it as anywhere near credible or plausible is just as good as advocating it.
It has no basis whatsoever in fact.

But Ron Paul has Redheads!!!!!!

http://rhfrp.xgenco.com/


SEE, Redheads!!!!!!1

(inside joke between, me, mike, katy, Tim, and Rachael)

hascoolnickname wrote:I don't believe I am advocating it as one in my post, please show me where I did so

I was attempting to understand your post, I wasn't saying that you said that, I was just asking you if that's what you meant because I did not understand what you meant when you made a distinction between the "THEORY of evolution" and the "science as we know it". You brought up creationism, I was trying to understand why.

hascoolnickname wrote:I'm sorry you're right when Dr. Paul said it's fine and that there's nothing to have an absolute answer on whether it's true or not he obviously meant that it doesn't exist and he doesn't believe in it at all. Keep in mind we're talking about the THEORY of evolution here, not evolution as a science as we know it, but the THEORY of evolution that has to be mutually exclusive to creationism and every other idea out there, unlike evolution as the mechanism for change of trait inheritance in a population.

So I guess I still don't see how your post addresses Paul's statement:

Ron Paul wrote:"it's a theory and i don't accept it."

And giving me a wiki and telling me to read it doesn't count as making a coherent argument I'd rather not have to guess at what you mean.