Or the Man of La Macho...
Posted on 10/17/2008 7:59:18 AM PDT by Soliton
Three antievolutionists have been appointed to a six-member committee to review the draft set of Texas state science standards, and defenders of the integrity of science education in the Lone Star state are livid. "The committee was chosen by 12 of the 15 members of the board of education, with each panel member receiving the support of two board members," as the Dallas Morning News (October 16, 2008) explains. Six members of the board "aligned with social conservative groups" chose Stephen C. Meyer, the director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, Ralph Seelke, a biology professor at the University of Wiconsin, Superior, and Charles Garner, a chemistry professor at Baylor University.
Meyer, Seelke, and Garner are all signatories of the Discovery Institute-sponsored "Dissent from Darwinism" statement. Meyer and Seelke are also coauthors of Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House, 2008), which, like Of Pandas and People, is a supplementary textbook that is intended to instill scientifically unwarranted doubts about evolution. A recent review by biologist John Timmer summarized, "But the book doesn't only promote stupidity, it demands it. In every way except its use of the actual term, this is a creationist book." Garner reportedly told the Houston Press (December 14, 2000) that he "criticizes evolutionary theory in class."
Meyer and Seelke also testified in the 2005 "kangaroo court" hearings held by three antievolutionist members of the Kansas state board of education, in which a parade of antievolutionist witnesses expressed their support for the so-called minority report version of the state science standards (written with the aid of a local "intelligent design" organization), complained of repression by a dogmatic evolutionary establishment, and claimed to have detected atheism lurking "between the lines" of the standards..
(Excerpt) Read more at ncseweb.org ...
Genesis 11. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3. And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
4. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
6. And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."
7. So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
8. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning--the second day.
9. And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.10. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11. Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
12. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13. And there was evening, and there was morning--the third day.
14. And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years,
15. and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth."And it was so.
16. God made two great lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth,
18. to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fourth day.
20. And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky."
21. So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth."
23. And there was evening, and there was morning--the fifth day.
24. And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
25. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26. Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
28. God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29. Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
30. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground--everything that has the breath of life in it--I give every green plant for food." And it was so.31. God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning--the sixth day.
Ah...
The excluded middle...
But OH so many to go!
Or the Man of La Macho...
So you aren't a complete sheep, good for you : )
I will agree that the Theory of Relativity doesn't disprove God. It does disprove the concept of an omnipotent and omniscient God though, unless it can be shown that information can be sent faster than the speed of light. A nice accurate, verifiable prophecy would do just that. Show me one and prove me wrong : )
Done been answered:
NIV Matthew 12:38-39
38. Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a miraculous sign from you."
39. He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
BUT...
NIV Proverbs 8:17
I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.
NIV Isaiah 45:18-19
18. For this is what the LORD says-- he who created the heavens, he is God; he who fashioned and made the earth, he founded it; he did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited-- he says: "I am the LORD, and there is no other.
19. I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob's descendants, `Seek me in vain.' I, the LORD, speak the truth; I declare what is right.
NIV Jeremiah 29:13
You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart.
NIV Isaiah 65:1
"I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me; I was found by those who did not seek me. To a nation that did not call on my name, I said, `Here am I, here am I.'
NIV Romans 10:20
And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me."
Well I try to specialize in debunking Gods that people still think are real :) It isn't any fun debunking Ra, no one seems to believe in Ra anymore : (
You don't believe in Ra or Dispator do you?
Pretty much : ) If you claim to have seen a tooth fairy and can't show me any evidence of the tooth fairy, don't take it personally if I don't believe you.
You need to get OUT more!
Why... just the other day, worshippers of His Brightness were shouting his name over and over: at a Football game!
I don't take it personally because that's exactly where I was 25 years ago. I would have loved to believe that there was a God. I would have loved to belive that life was more than eating and sleeping and working and playing for 80 years then gone. I would have loved to believe I had a purpose and was personally known by a God that created everything. All I wanted from God was to care enough about me to show Himself to me.
I don't dare take on Football fans. That is a religious fervor that makes burning at the stake seem mild by comparison : )
Why is that assumption faulty? Was every human being stupid and/or gullible before you got here to show us what a "rational" person looks like, what counts as evidence and what does not, etc.?
It seems to me the assumption of an uncaused first cause has the greatest possible explanatory power and coverage in accounting for the regularities of nature that we observe, the existence of the order of reality, of space and time, of the physical laws themselves. It answers the question, "Why are things the way they are and not some other way?" And also the question: "Why is there anything at all, why not nothing?"
You wrote: "Dispator (the Celtic God of creation) says that we are Gods. The Universe itself is God and not separated from its creator. Who are you to disagree with Dispator? Are you following my satire or do I need to spell it out more clearly?"
Yes, and Buddhists would seem to agree with Dispator [i.e., that God and the Universe are coextensive, or One]. Since it appears you are looking for a divine promotion -- to be "a god" yourself, at least in the narrow sense that you are to be the measure of all things, the criterion whereby all things false and true are to be discerned -- maybe Dispator is your divine cup of tea.
But it is not true that the Holy Scriptures "evolve." They are God's revelation of Himself to us, and this revelation does not change. Only the human understanding of it changes. But that doesn't mean that earlier generations "failed" to understand them properly. They understood them as best as they could at a time of limited knowledge as compared with today. Today, even science seems to support Genesis 1.... A little something called the Big Bang/inflationary universe theory. [Let there be Light!]
But it seems you don't expect that theory to hold up after all. Indeed, how can it, as far as you're concerned? It is entirely consistent with the idea of a willful, purposive, intelligent creator as the cause of the universe. And this you will not have; it must be falsified (though you cannot do it); for it leaves the door potentially open to the "divine foot getting in the door" -- and you absolutely deny God on principle.
Your presuppositions and methods are designed to falsify God. As far as you're concerned, such presuppositions and methods are infallible. You put your whole faith in that.
Amazing that these atheists rely so much on their [faulty] intellect which, by their own “logic”, “evolved” through random processes “guided” by the environment.
Of COURSE if you make an assumption, then examine all evidence within the confines of that assumption, you can prove the assumption.
“them iggnurt sheep herders may have been on to something...” [excerpt]Thank you for the compliment!
And how do you know this for sure? What determination has science made on what is outside the universe, or rather that there is indeed nothing outside our universe?
“Yeah except they had a tendency to get it backwards. They should have had God make the Sun first, before the light.” [excerpt]Next are you going to tell De Vinci how he should have done his paintings?
Well, that has been shown you several times. If you choose to close your eyes and plug your ears and sing *La, la, la, la, laaaaaaaaa,..... I can't hear youuuuuu.*, that's not our fault.
So you've been presented with the evidence, now the burden is on your to disprove it, as is the way it's done in scientific circles. Since you advocate that as a means of finding out the truth, the ball is in your court.
Don't drop it,........again......
I am very familiar with quantum entanglement and you are being disingenuous when you claim that information is distributed at the quantum level, by implying that information is being sent instantaneously. Schroedingers equations are extremely deterministic.
I don't know what you mean by "sent instantaneously." For something to be sent there must be a sender. I haven't said anything about a sender, which implies timely communications purposefully being sent to a recipient party. What is apparently happening with two entangled particles in widely space-separated regions is that both "instantly know" the condition of the other in all relevant parameters. Thus there is a symmetry between them, but the "instantly know" part may pertain to a supersymmetry perhaps mediated by a universal field that is undetectable to us in four dimensional spacetime, perhaps the entangled particles are just one single particle multiply imaged. We are here speaking of matters which do not conform to our ordinary ideas of space and time, and so the idea of the speed of light, since it involves our ordinary notion of four-dimensional spacetime, doesn't even come into play here.
Let's examine your argument rationally. You are saying that before anything at all existed, that God existed. God isn't anything at all, it is nonexistent. Therefore God doesn't exist. Does that about sum up your argument?
Technically, God does not "exist." God is Being, not existence. It is in this sense that He is "nonexistent."
Even His Name -- I Am That Am -- tells you that He is self-subsistent Being, not an existent entity. Existent things perish. Being is inexhaustible; it is not bound by space or time. It is eternal; it never ceases to be. It is immortal, having no end in space and time, for it is not IN space and time; only the existent things are....
I am very familiar with quantum entanglement and you are being disingenuous when you claim that information is distributed at the quantum level, by implying that information is being sent instantaneously. Schroedingers equations are extremely deterministic.
I don't know what you mean by "sent instantaneously." For something to be sent there must be a sender. I haven't said anything about a sender, which implies timely communications purposefully being sent to a recipient party. What is apparently happening with two entangled particles in widely space-separated regions is that both "instantly know" the condition of the other in all relevant parameters. Thus there is a symmetry between them, but the "instantly know" part may pertain to a supersymmetry perhaps mediated by a universal field that is undetectable to us in four dimensional spacetime, perhaps the entangled particles are just one single particle multiply imaged. We are here speaking of matters which do not conform to our ordinary ideas of space and time, and so the idea of the speed of light, since it involves our ordinary notion of four-dimensional spacetime, doesn't even come into play here.
Let's examine your argument rationally. You are saying that before anything at all existed, that God existed. God isn't anything at all, it is nonexistent. Therefore God doesn't exist. Does that about sum up your argument?
Technically, God does not "exist." God is Being, not existence. It is in this sense that He is "nonexistent."
Even His Name -- I Am That Am -- tells you that He is self-subsistent Being, not an existent entity. Existent things perish. Being is inexhaustible; it is not bound by space or time. It is eternal; it never ceases to be. It is immortal, having no end in space and time, for it is not IN space and time; only the existent things are....
Why do you contend that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light? How do you know for sure based our current level of knowledge of the universe?
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.