Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: "Dana Tweedy" <reddfrogg@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2008 18:04:22 -0600
"Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:be7e11fc-f8f1-4795-96b7-a6d7e8358707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 8, 7:45 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f6fb919b-92d4-4b40-9f02-95ade57314b3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mar 8, 4:41 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
snip
no science mentions god. none. if you can show me a physics or
chemistry principle that depends on god i'll become a creationist.-
Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Obviously you are ignorant of science before 1859 when British Natural
Theology controlled the establishment, and across the channel,
Ray shows his own ignorance of science. Before 1859 science operated just
as it did after. Even the "establishment" at that time understood that
science itself did not allow appeals to the supernatural.
Extreme ignorance.
Thanks for the warning, but it's what we've come to expect from your posts.
Before Darwin, Creationism controlled science. This is as much as a
fact as a round Earth.
Ray, creationism never "controlled science". It was never a scientific
concept, and never had any scientific support. The belief that God
created the world as described in the Bible was a religious belief. It was
always a place holder for an actual scientific theory, which Darwin
provided.
Curvier, a Creationist, controlled the establishment.
Cuvier was an influential person, but he didn't control science. No one
person can control science.
Since you ranted about this, when you thought John Wilkins wrote it, perhaps
you could show some evidence that Cuvier "controlled" science in France.
Did you know
that when Lyell wrote his "Principles in Geology" that he was a
Creationist?
Yes, but he was not what one would consider a modern day creationist.
Lyell's religious beliefs didn't prevent him from doing science, and he
was
not constrained to deny the evidence of an old Earth.
Comment makes no sense.
Ray, you have no idea what makes sense, or does not. What I'm pointing out
is that modern day Creationists refuse to accept any evidence that
contradicts their religious beliefs. Lyell was not that kind of person.
He was a scientist, and didn't prevent his religious beliefs from allowing
him to see the facts about the geology of the world.
But of course you are a product of the Talk Origins
preconception group think and its ignorance of basic history of
science 101.
Oh, the irony. Ray demonstrates his own ignorance of science, and then
claims others are ignorant.
DJT
Ray
Thanks for the assist, Ray. When it comes to displaying ignorance, no one
does it better.
DJT
.
- References:
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: raven1
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: DJT
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: Free Lunch
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: wf3h
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: Dana Tweedy
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- From: Ray Martinez
- Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- Prev by Date: Re: This is why John Wilkins is a Clown
- Next by Date: Re: Summary: Nested hierarchy and Common Descent
- Previous by thread: Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- Next by thread: Re: Dana Tweedy is a Clown
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading