Posted on 01/15/2005 2:06:00 PM PST by Happy2BMe
Thats the first good laugh I've had on these threads in some time. Very funny.
Any news on how things fluctuate before time exists to fluctuate in?
Hey, it's even worse than that. What fluctuates?
When you post some science instead of quote mining we can discuss the subject further.
I don't have the time to look them up, but I would bet most of these quotes are taken out of context. You really have to watch the quotes you use from creationist sites. Some of them have actually been altered to make it seem that biologists are against the idea of evolution.
Talk origins has a whole list of these. Look it up.
Since evolution is a fact and you have seen the various papers I have posted to support that fact, I would say we have reached the stage of "yes, it is. no it isn't".
So fairtheewell.
Calling opponents in the debate homosexuals is a personal attack.
The 2nd Ammendment says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Judges created the "separation of church and state" illegally by usurping the power of Congress.
It is obvious that either the States or the People may establish religion in their respective states.
That is if you read for meaning, which apparently liberal judges are unable to do.
I don't think the federal court has jurisdiction in the sticker case. I also think that posting a lying sticker is not a good thing. It is obvious that a Christian cult, hiding behind psuedo-science was trying to undermine science teaching in public schools. Public schools are only legal if the federal government stays away. The feds are not allowed to be in education according to a strict reading of the Constitution. It is the feds that are messing everything up. The States and the people should be allowed to sort things out, themselves.
The same way there are 24 hr days, before the Sun is created.
I'm not sure it would be worthwhile to debate with you on statements that you have made when evoluionist who are said to be authorities in the field clearly disagree with them. Secondly, there is nothing ambiguous about these quotes that would lead the reader to believe the author meant just the opposite or something else. The fact that you are unwilling to research even one of these quotes is no dobut not due to a lack of time but rather due to your unwavering deep rooted faith in evolution. Nonetheless, I do have some questions for you:
1. Does evolution contradict the law of biogenisis?
2. Does evolution conflict with the law of mass action?
3. What would have kept the first chemical compounds from
precipitating?
4. Wouldn't fluid condensation have been a problem for
these chemical compounds?
5. How did these chemicals keep from decomposing with the
presence of oxygen?
6. Why wouldn't hydrolysis have kept the first proteins
from forming?
7. Wouldn't synthesis have been a problem for the
formation of fatty acids?
The site you refered me to is nothing more than a smoke screen. The often-repeated charge that anti-evolutionist deliberately use partial quotes or out-of-context quotes from evolutionists is, at best, an attempt to confuse the issue. Evolutionists ardently defend their house against outsiders, but squabble vigorously with each other inside the house. Of course they don't want the general public to know this.This fact alone makes the theory questionable.
One course in chemistry should have sufficed to respond to any of these questions not to mention five course. ..And you talk about my credibility.
>Spontaneos generation has never been observed as demonstrated by Louis Pasteur. All observations have shown that life only comes from life. This has been observed so consistently, it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes.
>According to the law of mass action, even if a life form could be made in seawater, it would immediately disintegrate back into chemicals.
This is because chemical reactions always proceed in a direction from highest to lowest concentration.
For example, even if an amino acid (a building block of protein) could be made in seawater, the next instant, the law of mass action would eliminate it. The amino acid would hydrolyze with the abundant water—and return back into separate chemicals.
Because this law applies to chemical reactions which are reversible, it applies to all life compounds
Even if the chemical compounds, needed to produce a living creature, could make themselves—the next instant they would start to precipitate; that is, they would start uniting with still other chemical compounds. For example, fatty acids would combine with magnesium or calcium; and arginine (an amino acid), chlorophyll, and porphyrins would be absorbed by clays.
In fact, many of the compounds in our body have to be kept separate—or they will mutually destroy one another. An example would be sugars and amino acids, when brought together.
>Certain compounds can only exist when the water is carefully drained off. This would include fats, sugars, nucleic acids, and proteins. So they could not be made in any kind of water.
>A major obstacle to producing life from nonlife is the presence of oxygen. The chemicals of life will decompose if oxygen is in the air.
When the chemical compounds within the life form are opened to the presence of oxygen, those compounds decompose. They oxidize. That is another reason a living creature could not be invented by ocean water; there is oxygen there
Complex chemical compounds, found in living things, could not be made in the presence of oxygen. Yet there is no place in the world where they could be made—except within living cells. Each cell carefully organizes which parts will not have oxygen, so the compounds can be made there.
> The problem with protein synthesis and hydrolysis is that even if amino acids could have formed, it would immediately hydrolyze; that is, it would reconnect with other chemicals and self-destruct
"The site you refered me to is nothing more than a smoke screen"
Well so much for learning anything. Have a nice life.
Just wanted to make sure you understood where I stand, before I ignore you.
I think God made evolution.
God created everything so evolution is one of the things He created.
Anyone who does not think so is rejecting God's creation and thus rejecting God.
Hmm... "God made evolution" . Now why would someone in New York with a plane ticket to LA decide to make the journey on foot?
Why would you think God couldn't run the pool table with one shot? Why would he have to do it your way by putting each ball in the hole with his hand?
My statement was true. Here are the words of Congressman John Bingham, the man who actually wrote and proposed the 14th Amendment. Read it and weep:
"I have advocated here an amendment which would arm congress with the power to compel obedience to the oath [that state officers take to uphold the Federal constitution] and to punish all violations by state officers of the Bill of Rights."(Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 1292, 1866)
Do you honestly think you know the meaning of the 14th Amendment better than the man who actually wrote it?
I posted to you about the Blaine Amendment that failed to pass 8 years after passage of the 14A. You failed to respond on the other thread.
I have other things to do than post on FR 24/7. I repond when I get a chance. Here's my response:
That Congress failed to pass the Blaine Amendment 10 years later (not 8, as you incorrectly stated) has no relevence to whether 14th Amendment was intended to force the states to comply with the Bill of Rights. The composition of Congress was vastly different in 1876 than it was in 1866. The radical anti-slavery Republicans were no longer in control. It is doubtful the 14th Amendemnt would have passed in 1876, so the fact that the Blaine Amendment didn't pass means nothing.
Perhaps you will argue that there would have been no reason to pass the Blaine Amendment in 1876 if the 14th Amendment applied the 1st Amendment to the states. This would be a valid argument had SCOTUS not gutted the 14th Amendment in the Slaughterhouse Cases. The Blaine Amendment was introduced by the same people who introduced the 14th Amendment precisely because SCOTUS had thwarted their attempt to compel states to obey the Bill of Rights using the 14th Amendment.
14A is a club the secular left uses to advance its causes, see Roe and Lawrence
Actually, Lawrence was an attempt to use the 14th Amendment to stop affirmative action. I think it validly applies in this case. Unfortunately, the court made a bad decision. The 14th Amendment arguments also stopped the fraudulant recounts in Florida back in 2000. The 14th Amendment has been used by the right in other cases. See Miller v. Oregon. There are plenty of other examples. Limiting state power is an exclusive province of neither the right nor the left.
As I said on the other thread, by your logic, the DOI establishes religion and is unConstitutional which makes the entire principle that this country was founded on moot.
The DOI is not a legal or civic documentment. It has no force of law. Notice that the Constitution itself makes no religious claims. In any case, references to God in and of themselves do not constitute establishment of religion. Asserting the truth of a religious belief as if it were a fact in a government-run school is a completely different matter.
Suppose the schoolboard decided to put the following disclaimer in all astronomy textbooks:
"Heliocentrism is a theory, not a fact, about the motion of planets. It should be considered with an open mind and the geocentric alternatives carefully considered."
Would you not want the court to stop it?
That was true before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. It is no longer true today. Now states have the same restrictions as congress.
Sorry, but I was right. You seem to have failed to read the whole text of the link you provided:
It is hard to imagine the very beginning of the Universe. Physical laws as we know them did not exist due to the presence of incredibly large amounts of energy, in the form of photons. Some of the photons became quarks, and then the quarks formed neutrons and protons.
According to the link, in the begnining there were photons, which are a form energy. Light, to be exact. That's not nothing. From this energy came matter. We know as a fact that energy can be transformed into matter and vice versa. Science has nothing to say about where the photons came from. I belive they came from God, who said, "let there be light," but that's a religious, not a scientific belief.
What religion is it establishing?
Creationism.
The right not to have religious beliefs presented as facts to my kids in a tax-funded school.
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.