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 ...
You're right that that isn't a prophecy about Christ because it's not in the Bible.
If you're going to try to disprove the Bible, you ought to get what you're trying to disprove correct first. Disproving something you made up isn't too hard.
A blind man arguing that there’s no light because he can’t find any evidence for it.
Provide the evidence that it is so and that you're not just making a baseless statement cause that's the way you want it to be.
Fair enough : ) Does this mean anything to you? M = Mo/Square root of (1-v2)/c2 ? Where the rest mass is Mo and c is the speed of light.
This is in contrast to Newtons Second Law F = d(mv)/dt where the tacit assumption is that m is a constant which we now know is not true.
Do you need more evidence? Experimental evidence? Do you want me to walk you through the Michelson-Morley experiments, Lorentz transformation, to space-time vectors? Or do you just want a reference to an experiment that demonstrates the relativistic effects?
And a computer programmer is confined to the rules that he sets for the program...
You're right that that isn't a prophecy about Christ because it's not in the Bible.
Well here is what the Bible says.
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
If you're going to try to disprove the Bible, you ought to get what you're trying to disprove correct first. Disproving something you made up isn't too hard.
Tell you what. Why don't you read the Bible or at least familiarize yourself with it before you make a total fool of yourself?
There may be other brane realms of variables which cause a completely different orientation to temporal variables, so the poster is making a fool of his own assumed supremacy since he has no knowledge yet of these other branes which have been sensed indirectly, thus this sad little man cannot make such a final assertion as there is no God because he has limited light transmission to a specific vacuum measurement.
Physicist, Lisa Randall, has cited a few examples of these other brane realms in her recent book Warped Passages.
You are simply starting from an unfounded assumption. Unless you can provide evidence of your "computer programmer" I can dismiss your "computer programmer" without need to provide any evidence.
You are simply starting from an unfounded assumption.
You arrogant little man, have you yet figured out the difference in certain individuals found int he Old Testament? Bwahahahahaha, you’re such a fool, telling people to ‘read the Bible’ with which you have so little familiarity. [How do you like being insulted, little man? You insult others with impunity. Enjoy the ridicule, fool. BTW, calling you fool is appropriate based on scripture, for you have said in your dark heart that there is no God.]
Even IF, and that's a big IF, information cannot travel faster than the speed of light, you have been deliberately ignoring that God is omnipresent.
Ahh I forgot. God is supposedly omnipresent too : ) Well I am now gazing into the bottom of my coffee cup and guess what? No God there. I have just falsified the Omnipresent God too : )
So lets add to the list of what God isn't. God isn't Omnipresent, Omniscient, or Omnipotent or even any good at prophecy. Am I missing anything that God can't be? : )
Now you have gone from cursing me to calling me a fool. I will freely admit that I am a fool : ) although I prefer the term Court Jester. Being free to speak the truth is liberating, you should try it some time :)
He also forgets that if God exists outside of space-time, as is essentially posited by the Judeo-Christian tradition, then velocity (as a time-dependent variable) does not even apply to God.
Not a minister so I wouldn’t know, fool, er, little jester.
If God doesn't exist in our space-time or affect it, then what is the point to believing in it at all? No information is sent in our universe faster than the speed of light. If your God is outside the Universe (beyond the event horizon) he will never be able to get a message to us : )
It kind of defeats the purpose of prayer and prophecy doesn't it?
But that's okay, keep looking at your coffee cup and assuming that because God doesn't put on a personal laser-lights display for you, that He must not exist.
But there still is a disagreement between us: I believe in God and you do not. For when I say, "God is not an existent," I DO NOT mean that there is NO GOD. I DO mean that God simply IS. To speak of Him as "existing" in any particular state, or having particular attributes or qualities, is to use conventions of human speech which do not apply to Him.
But if we want to speak of Him at all, we have to use terms that are understandable to others. For instance, when we try to designate something as "real," we often refer to it as "existing" or as an "existent," or as an "entity" or something of the sort. But to speak of God in this way — as "existing" — is truly a misnomer and bound to create confusion in communication.
He is Real but utterly intangible. He is found — if He is found at all — in spiritual — that is, non-sensory — personal experiences. You will never have such experiences so long as you keep the doors and windows bolted against the Spirit of God.
This is a most difficult thing for many people to grasp: God, as pure Being, does not fit the normal human categories of thought, which have been largely shaped by our observations and experiences of a 4D universe. That's all sense perception gives us access to, cognitively speaking.
But as I've already mentioned, God -- being omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient -- is not bound by the spatiotemporal constraints that bind us humans. He is "outside" (Plato said "Beyond") space and time.
In this, the classical Greeks, Israel, and Christianity are all in agreement.
It's fascinating to me, but the one "modern" who comes to mind with a "scientific project" to connect God to His Creation is Sir Isaac Newton. The "connection" was something Newton called the sensorium Dei — which strikes me as a sort of universal field that places the divine and earthly realms into contact, such that God can operate in the world from time to time, and so that He shall be recognized as "the Lord of Life with His creatures," as Newton put it.
As a Christian, Newton was regarded a heretic: He was a relentless monotheist who rejected the Trinity as an unnecessary complication of causes (i.e., Occam's Razor). His concept of God: God is Creator — and God Pantocrator — of the universe. (Pantocrator meaning all-ruling, or absolute ruler).
Anyhoot, I thought you might appreciate the Newton story, LeGrande. Life is full of such little ironies....
Thanks so much for writing!
Well and truly said, Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus!
Spot On!!! And thank you so very much!
For sure MrB! If you're conducting an experiment to test an assumption, then the first thing you have to do is qualify your evidence, as relating or not relating to the problem at hand. It must be fairly easy to "prove" stuff on that basis. :^)
Why is this such a difficult concept for our evo friends to grasp?
It isn’t. They just don’t want to.
==Nothing is faster than the speed of light.
Your fellow Temple of Darwin fanatics in the field of astrophysics think the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. So who is wrong, you or your materialist co-religionists?
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/070904a.html
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.