On Mar 4, 8:27 pm, PD <
thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 4, 10:24 am, Ste <
ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 4 Mar, 15:54, PD <
thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 4, 1:03 am, Ste <
ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > This is what fundamentally sets apart things like creationism from
> > > > > > science. Whatever other hoops creationism manages to jump through, it
> > > > > > will never jump through the hoop of naturalism, and that is what
> > > > > > *fundamentally* sets it apart from science.
>
> > > > > And also FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes science from religion. Thanks.
>
> > > > Agreed, but then religion in general never claimed to be science,
>
> > > Agreed! And so science is not a religion in the same fashion.
>
> > No, but neither did one religion ever claim to be the other.
>
> > > > and
> > > > traditional religion is almost immediately identifiable by its
> > > > supernaturalism. Creationism is different in that it actually claims
> > > > to be scientific in some essential respects.
>
> > > Ah, yes, but as has been demonstrated even to layfolk (Dover v
> > > Kitsmiller), this is an unsupportable claim.
>
> > I agree. I'm glad you brought up that case. I just reviewed the
> > judgment quickly, and apparently the court agrees that the defining
> > essence of science is naturalism.
>
> Gee, I didn't read that into the judgment at all.
-----------------
what is all that nonstop spamming about
'A constant speed of light ' !!!
who is the crook behind it ??!!
Y.P
-------------------