Posted on 11/29/2012 7:56:08 PM PST by kathsua
The new standard for teaching science in public schools should prohibit teaching religious beliefs like evolution as if they were the equivalent of scientific theories.
Science should be defined as using experimentation and observation to discover information about physical reality. Explanations of what happened in the ancient past cannot be verified using experimentation and observation.
----------advertisement-----------
Contrary to a popular myth pushed by those who want to make science a substitute for religion, science has yet to produce a new explanation for the development of life or the origin of the universe.
The idea that the universe came out of a black hole (the "Big Bang" theory) became popular in the 20th century, but it is hardly a new explanation. An account attributed to the biblical patriarch Enoch (Noah's great-grandfather) first described an event in which "all of creation" came out of an invisible object with a fiery light inside (i.e., a black hole) thousands of years ago. Many cultures use the word "egg" to describe the object the universe came out of.
The idea of one species changing to another, particularly the idea of humans being related to apes, was around long before Charles Darwin wrote his "Origin of the Species." Darwin was reluctant to say we are a monkey's grandchildren, so he just suggested that we are distant cousins. The ancient Tibetan religion had no such inhibitions and claims that we are descended from monkeys.
Evolutionists ignore the fact that humans use gradual changes to develop complex equipment. Development of biological life through gradual changes implies that an Intelligence developed life.
Keep in mind that my main bone of contention in this controversy is the declaration that “Creationism is useless” (speaking of “pejoratives”). I refer you again to #248 (see also #131 . . . “Creationism meanwhile is a dead end that leads nowhere and to nothing - to no further knowledge or discovery - it is useless”).
You still have two explanations: 1) what “bad arguments” and, from earlier (#276) 2) what “pejoratives” (and I’ll add a previously unanswered query, “Have you a charge to lodge, Boyo?”). #191 is where you first came into the bar looking for a fight.
A distinguishing characteristic of “Evos”, as well as other Liberals, is their thirst to control the lives of their fellow beings. And, remarkably, this despite their professed dedication to Science. I think their devotion to Science is fueled by the belief that it can be used as the primary tool to control people. So far as I know, Ayn Rand (decidedly not a Christian) was the first to articulate this insight.
What if you're wrong?
Well then I shall be confronted with the awful verity that I didn’t know far enough.
In the meantime you still have two responses to my queries you’ve not attended to 1) what “bad arguments” and, from earlier (#276) 2) what “pejoratives” (plus I added one previously unanswered query, “Have you a charge to lodge, Boyo?”).
You do know what “perjorative” means, right?
“Isn’t that how most films are written these days? Find a formula and fill in the blanks?”
Messed up, but true. The creative effort nowadays is a shame compared to what it used to be. Nowadays, it’s a question of trying to dazzle you without a plot to match. Good insight.
Plus I know how to spell pejorative.
Reduced to juvenile insults (and trying desperately to change the subject). Pathetic.
It also remains that you still have two responses to my queries you’ve not attended to 1) what “bad arguments” and, from earlier (#276) 2) what “pejoratives” (plus I added one even earlier unanswered query, “Have you a charge to lodge, Boyo?”).
Did you learn that from Alinski?
You have to know the definition:
Boyo, noun, informal chiefly Welsh & Irish, a boy or man (usually used as a form of address).
Still desperately trying to change the subject.
Again, it remains that you still have two responses to my queries to which you’ve not attended 1) what “bad arguments” and, from earlier (#276) 2) what “pejoratives” (plus I added one even earlier unanswered query, “Have you a charge to lodge, Boyo?”).
If you don't want it, don't start it.
You first contacted me ( #191). I’ve answered your questions. I guess you expect, even demand, answers pleasing to you (not likely that will happen).
Still desperately trying to change the subject. Nothing “odd” about remarking that you’re trying to change the subject when that’s what you’re doing.
It still remains that you have two responses to my queries to which you’ve not attended 1) what “bad arguments” and, from earlier (#276) 2) what “pejoratives” (plus I added one even earlier unanswered query, “Have you a charge to lodge, Boyo?”
So, you do subscribe to the “Creationism is Useless” meme (and wish not to admit to it)?
Sounds like we're done.
It's an open forum for everyone to view (who wants to take the trouble). They will know the truth.
"Sounds like we're done."
Begging for the last word.
Very well, you may have the last word.
Christianity is the only *religion* which places that kind of value on a human life.
Take God out of the equation, as scientists have done with science, and you have situational ethics and NO basis whatsoever, to make any determination of what is true and false, right and wrong, or good and evil.
Science only deals with a subset of reality, that of the physical, material world around us and it doesn’t do that great of a job at that, even though at the present, it’s the best we have for that purpose.
It’s a good tool which has enabled mankind to make some worthwhile technological advances, but does NOTHING in addressing basis human need and does NOTHING to giving true meaning to life. The things that give true meaning to life are outside the prevue of the scientific method.
Science combined with Christian thinking and morals has improved our lives considerably. Science without it has given us the killing fields of the 20th century atheistic regimes of Mao, Lenin, Stalin, etc.
Looks like creationism isn’t useless after all.
You’ll never get him to commit to anything. The evo who stirs the pot by constantly challenging and trying to keep people off balance, who NEVER commits himself to ANYTHING.
You will never see tl take a stand on anything.
I applaud your efforts to try to keep him focused. It’s entertaining at the least to watch him dodge and parry and counter while never committing himself.
So I get to post 291 and rest my case.......
I’m glad you’re feeling better.
Well since it happened once the odds at one time were 100% in favor. I'll accept evolution as reasonable, where I find the "astronomical odds" is the "creation" of functional DNA/RNA out of random snips and bits of amino acids.
I guess it would be like lightning striking twice if it happened again.
Lightning strikes twice all the time! High speed photography has shown that the first touch of leaders from a charged cloud and the ground below establishes a plasma conduit. The actual discharge follows this conduit as a series of strokes in rapid succession following more or less the same pathway. On another time scale tall objects like skyscrapers, mountain tops, broadcasting antennas, and similar are often struck by lightning during the same storm and also over a span of years.
Conveniently, that also eliminates the pesky problem of scientists actually having to replicate the phenomenon so that their proposed explanation can be proven or disproven.
True there, the "bits and snips of random amino acids" have been synthesized by recreating hypothetical early earth conditions. No one has ever observed the synthesis of any larger molecules even remotely resembling DNA. That lack of evidence is to me the invitation to invoke "intelligent design" as the likely source of life on earth.
Regards,
GtG
PS Is there any example of self replicating life which does not involve genes?
“Well since it happened once the odds at one time were 100% in favor.”
No, not really. If you flip a coin and it lands on heads, it wasn’t a 100% chance of landing on heads, it was still only 50%, just like every other flip. Odds are independent of the results, unless you’re talking about some kind of recursive feedback system, where the results affect the conditions that determine the odds.
“Lightning strikes twice all the time!”
Yes, of course you are right. I was just speaking euphemistically. Interesting that you mention the plasma conduit, most folks don’t pay much attention to the plasma interactions in the atmospheric electrical phenomena like lightning. Incidentally, plasma, unlike DNA and RNA, actually does exhibit self-organizing behavior under the right conditions. The electrical currents passing through the plasma generate a magnetic field that can then confine and shape the plasma, redirecting the current, and reshaping the magnetic field into an optimal configuration.
We see a lot of things like that in nature, simple feedback interactions of forces that can produce a self-organization effect instantaneously. However, we don’t see any processes that will require aeons of time to randomly generate self-organization in an nonreplicable manner.
“No one has ever observed the synthesis of any larger molecules even remotely resembling DNA.”
Of course they haven’t. A simple study of the process necessary to replicate DNA in a nucleus should be enough to dissuade any unbiased person of the idea that it could just randomly happen in some hot organic soup.
Besides which, DNA is like a book, not a random collection of “noise”, but actual organized and meaningful information, with syntax and rules. The amino acids are simply the letters. One could decide to write a book with a naturally occurring alphabet, like “sand, crystal, pebble, rock, boulder” each being assigned as a letter. However, if we found a sensible, intelligent book written using such an alphabet, we wouldn’t assume the book itself was naturally occurring just because the elements might be.
Indeed. Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dear sister in Christ!
Well said again Metmom. Part of where my tagline comes from.
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.