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.
You intend to assume your thesis, not test it.
This is a very disingenuous performance. I noticed immediately that your proposal was utterly untestable. You do not have the integrity to admit the obvious.
Passion of the Spaghetti Monster
Happy Winter Holiday (as Google would have it)!
Well, perhaps much for the same reason I call cold fusion and astrological forecast charting and the chiropractic disease theory of bone displacement, and my notion that the kids will go to sleep if I read them a story, theories. Unlike the case with finding a genuine, potentially falsifying test, there is no significant bar to being a theory.
That is your opinion, and you are welcome to it. I prefer to go with what it actually says, and which I just quoted: "Promoting the general welfare" seems like an awfully broad charter to me.
(After all, Christmas was swiped from the Romans, Jesus almost certainly having been born in the springtime. So it seems appropriating it for one's own purposes is a well-established precedent!)
But Io Saturnalia, anyway!
Don't know, but fairly high.
Eventually, I imagine, nylonase will bind to insoluble nylon and hydrolyse it on the fiber. The difficulty in hydrolysing insoluble polymers is the primary reason cellulases are rather rare.
Indeed it would be unlimited.
It was a good thing that the actual powers to effectuate that mandate were specifically enumerated following the statement. If it were a broad mandate, it would have been unnecessary to enumerate the specific powers that congress had.
Merry Christmas
According to this site, the number of monomer units in nylon 66 is 100 to 250.
More interesting stuff on this site.
Cheers!
...and Merry Christmas!
Thank you!
All the Best to You and YoursTM!
Sorry for the late post, I tend to be that way at the best of times, and this is a long thread.
What part of "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" don't you understand?
Of course, you're from Oregon. That might explain a lot.
Of course, you're from Oregon. That might explain a lot.
Make a point I can understand, or go insult someone else.
It was a good thing that the actual powers to effectuate that mandate were specifically enumerated following the statement. If it were a broad mandate, it would have been unnecessary to enumerate the specific powers that congress had.
Balderdash. There is no grammatical indication that each paragraph in that section isn't independent, and some of the inumerated items bear no obvious relation to the leading paragraph. furthermore, the final sentence reads:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof
I'd call this a serious case of libertarian wishful-thinkingism.
Merry Christmas
shiny
It's discussed in Federalist #41, and I once did a big post on that subject, here: Post 112.
Well, first of all, that you shouldn't have pinged me in the other thread. I'll copy what I accidently posted there:
A ringing defense all told, however, there is no real defense in the grammatic construction of Article 1, Section 8. Those are parallel sentences written as paragraphs, and independent, parallel clauses ellipsed in an obvious manner in front. The defense that they are separated by "a mere semi-colon" is way off the mark, grammatically speaking--if what is contended were true, a colon would have been called for, and subsequent dependent clauses.
The argument from reasonable logical dependency is unsound on a couple of counts: 1) paragraph 1 contains bloody details about imposts and excises that are not further constrained in the body of Article 1, Section 8, and 2) the body contains constraints whose subsidiary relationship to paragraph 1 is doubtful, at best. How, for example, do you derive depriving DC of it's own local government from "providing for the Defense, or general welfare?". I don't think you can do that without kicking the phrase into generous interpretation, which is exactly what you are objecting to, is it not?
The argument from original intent doesn't seem to me to bear much weight on examination, either, #41 of the Federalist notwithstanding: The reason we appended the Bill of Rights was that many people looked at this document and didn't in the least see the constraints you seem willing to read into it, based neither on grammar, nor critical reading, nor, as I argue, on original intent. If the strictures you are imagining exist, there's no real need for a Bill of Rights--Article 8, section 1, as you have interpreted it, is an adequate defense against arbitrary government tyranny and plundering.
Finally, lets look at Buckley's old argument about some of this: Are the strictures on military spending that supposedly restrict broad interpretation of paragraph 1 stones in the road that prevented us from paying for a standing profession army to face down the communist nuclear threats with for 40 years? Or do you entertain libertarian fantasies that we could have stood up to Russia with an army of sporadically activated unpaid militia? Or do you think we should have taken paragraph 1 seriously?
Fine. We agree on that point.
Shiny. Nothing so christmassy as agreement.
My point was that you only mentioned the "establishment" and left out the "free exercise".
And quoting from post 2543:
Where in the constitution is the so called principle of "separation of church and state specfically enunciated."
...
Word-lawyering aside, the principle is established in the 1st amendment,
Now to borrow from Patrick Henry's post #112--
If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever?
To follow from the logic of that post, it struck me as odd that you only quoted a portion of the first amendment.
There is a whole continuum from establishing a specific religion by statute or fiat, to endorsing a religion, to mentioning, to accomodating it, to suppressing it, etc.
Everyone on this thread seems to beg their own question about where the Dover school board lies on that continuum. And the result is a long-drawn-out "less-filling, tastes great" dispute, without the amusing anecdotes.
Perhaps if people spelled out their opinion on that aspect of things first, the flame wars would become a little more civil.
As far as the Oregon remark, much of the "Left Coast" including Oregon is tainted by hostility to Christianity. From some of your posts, it looked like some of the hostility had rubbed off; from other of your posts, it seemed like you were expertly defending the supernatural.
That ambiguity is why is used the word "might"; and the use of such a phrase did accomplish the intended purpose, of attracting your notice to the point of replying.
Cheers!
...and Merry Christmas!
I didn't know you were bringing in Debussy and / or Narnia into the discussion ;-)
Cheers!
...and Merry Christmas!
VadeRetro: This is a very disingenuous performance.
unlearner: It is not apparent to me how.
I no longer believe you can't see this. Furthermore, I pity any lurker who is having the difficulty you claim for yourself. So here's where we back up a little bit.
unlearner: I assume it for logical and philosophical reasons, but I also want it tested. Testing will support it IF it is true.
What testing is that, pray tell, and how will it support your ridiculous blanket negative?
You cannot test the proposition that there is no way no how never that biochemicals can spontaneously (even over half a billion years) self-assemble to life. You could run tests for ten thousand years and never make a dent in the possibilities still out there untried.
I have several times explained this to you. Just a few posts ago you practically acknowledged the untestability by saying you were only going to assume the premise. If I am to believe you have a test for it, I want to see the test plan.
You're writing volumes of empty blather here while refusing to address the obvious. You are never going to test your proposition.
The abnormal psychology you guys exhibit is part of the fascination for me. It's part of what keeps me coming back here. Very few of you can admit an error above the typo level in argument with the Heathen Foe. You are not one of those few who can. Do you think no one can see?
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.