Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.
[...God is who created us. Evolution is how he did it...]
I believe there is NO GAP between Gen 1:1 and 1:2.
"I declared the former things long ago and they went
forth from My mouth, and I proclaimed them......
SUDDENLY I acted, and they came to pass." Isaiah 48:3.
The problem is that the selections you've mentioned have had nothing to do with the genetic code of the plants that you've mentioned.
A tree is still a tree. Johnson grass is still Johnson grass. Etc.
I disagree wholeheartedly with your endorsement of a federal court to make a local decision.
I wholeheartedly agree in principle. However, there can be disagreements on what is and is not a local decision.
Haven't bee ntrying to avoid this thread. Been busy.
It's pretty obvious that the plaintiffs got everything they wanted in this case. I think the judge is wrong, but he made the ruling he made.
Since there will likely be no appeal given the current composition of the school board, the only party bound by this decision is the Dover School Board. Contrary to some news reports, this decision is not binding on the other judges in the US District Court.
The case that should draw our attention next is the upcoming decision in the 11th Circuit in the Cobb County School Board case. Based on reports of oral arguments, it seems likely the 11th circuit will likely be the opposite in a similar case.
I will try to get around to reading the entire decision in the next day or two, and then will make some comments.
Please keep in mind that I do not avoid threads simply beccause I may not like or agree the the decision of a judge. As you may or may not recall, I was in favor of a perjury prosecution for those defendants who committed perjury in their depositions. It was foolish of them to do so and I stated that it would not help their case; and in fact, hurt it. that certainly seems to be the case.
This thread should be about federalists vs anti-federalists. Nanny state vs local control. Brown boots vs Constitutional roots.
There, that should stir it up.
You are imposing climate as the only selection taking place. You have yet to change a single strand of DNA.
And you haven't accounted for someone getting killed when a meteor accidentally hits them in the head. (Which still doesn't change any DNA.)
I want to see natural selection that changes DNA. The things you're talking about already exist.
The whole EVO crowd believe in a flawed ideology that has no scientific credentials...and all those who have subscribed to it over the years are flawed.
no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals
no transitional forms
frauds
The simplest cells are not more primitive than, or ancestral of, larger ones.
Big problem for evos ---that is why they struggle so hard...and in vain.
After one generation, yes. But after enough generations, no.
The "kind" argument of creationists has never proposed a mechanism for why evolution should stop at some point. There is no "micro" vs. "macro" evolution. It is one process, that continues for as long as life lives.
Speciation occurs when some phenomena (a river, whatever) causes two separate populations to form, and one goes in one direction, and the other in another, and eventually they can no longer successfully reproduce and become separate species. This is because the two populations to not swap DNA and thus maintain a coherent species distinction any longer.
Its what it should be, but it isn't.:-(
"It is unreasonable to believe in creationism without any evidence to support that theory."
I guess my evidence is that there is no explanation for how the universe came into being apart from a creator.
Darwin believed that the fossil record would reveal thousands or millions of life forms which would demonstrate a gradual change from one kind to another (called transitional forms)
But the fossil record has been against the Darwinian theory from the very beginning. It's true that different kinds of organisms lived on the earth at different times. But what is not seen in the fossil record is the steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different.Instead,if something new shows up in the rocks, it shows up all at once and fully formed, and then it stays the same.
If evolution means the steady progressive change of one kind of living thing into something completely different, then the fossil record contradicts evolution.
Given the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, evolutionists quietly acknowledge this is still a "research issue".
There is virtually nothing in the fossil record that can be used as evidence of a transitional life form when apparent examples of useful mutations are examined thoroughly, it becomes clear that no transitional creatures exist anywhere in the fossil record.
John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.
The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.
So many questions arise in the study of fossils (paleontology) that even many evolutionary paleontologists put little stock in the fossil record. Basing one's belief in evolution on the shaky ground of paleontology can scarcely be considered scientific.
Still here, still bring no evidence for any of the assertions you've made in this thread?
"I guess my evidence is that there is no explanation for how the universe came into being apart from a creator."
What's that got to do with evolution?
"I want to see natural selection that changes DNA. The things you're talking about already exist."
The change, properly speaking, is in the allele frequencies of populations. The environment will most certainly change which alleles survive, and which perish. Allele changes are by definition changes in the DNA.
Any very large numbers are generated from strawman models. If I fail to go easy on people who cling to absurd, strawman models, it's no injustice. Remaining militantly ignorant of evolution while railing about how silly it is does not exactly qualifiy as science.
Yes, God created federal judges too!
It's a DNA argument....not a kind argument.
You've gotta show some changed DNA & you've got to measure the amount of time it took to accomplish that change.
Where is that in the literature?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.