Posted on 02/13/2004 3:14:29 AM PST by The Raven
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:51:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Even before Darwin, critics attacked the idea of biological evolution with one or another version of, "Evolve this!"
Whether they invoked a human, an eye, or the whip-like flagella that propel bacteria and sperm, the contention that natural processes of mutation and natural selection cannot explain the complexity of living things has been alive and well for 200 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
The combinations are not relevant to the discussion I was having and into which you entered. Genes exist apart from any single individual. Evolution is described in terms of populations and not individuals. Now answer the question I posed, or expect no further discussion from me.
Don't accept my word, look at the sources. In this thread alone, there are references to Type Three Secretion Systems. One paper, in particular, discounts the flagellar to TTS evolution (and vice versa) due to the population's genetics not the individual's genetics. That is precisely the point I am trying to make. Genes exist apart from any single individual.
I'll tell you what. I propose a theory of grue. Stop lights have three colors, red, yellow and grue. Grue lights are green right now, but in the year 2099, they will all turn blue. Now, being a good scientist, I go around driving from city to city, keeping a notepad record of all the glue lights I see, and lo! After months of extensive investigation, I discover all the lights I've ever checked satisfy the criteria of grue-ness, so--Am I ready to publish my "proof"?
I can virtually guarantee that the grue theory will withstand every test the journal's referee's and critics can concoct. Clearly, by your criteria, this is a solid proof.
Let me just suggest you that you refrain from trying to defend science from the well-prepared creationists at your local school board. You will be handed your head in short order. Just because some half-baked metaphysical theory happens to be common practice, doesn't mean it can reason its way out of paper bag.
Well, sure. But the issue in question is--is einstein's universe just a minor correction in the least significant figures to newtonian physics, as my deponent contends? Or is it a radically different universe?
| The Newtonian universe wouldn't have been proposed if it had been known that observers everywhere in the universe perceive the passage of time differently. | = | 1720 |
Any evidence or sources of that, daddy-boy? The Voyager mission is well documented and there is that entire Cassini mission due this year - you should have a source somewhere. Of course, we have pictures that they are there - but you say they don't exist like the big bang. Maybe they made up the entire Cassini mission.
But then NASA has of a Cassini division - even labeled "Cassini Division." This primer on Saturn states that:
"Two prominent rings (A and B) and one faint ring (C) can be seen from the Earth. The gap between the A and B rings is known as the Cassini division."
It then goes no to say:
"Mimas seems to be responsible for the paucity of material in the Cassini division, which seems to be similar to the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid belt; Pan is located inside the Encke Division. The whole system is very complex and as yet poorly understood."
How can something that is there, not be? Bloody rude of it not to pay attention to its nonexistence. Maybe you could make a law banning it too.
NASA thought about sending Pioneer 11 throught there but didn't in case there was some debris in there - and yep, when Voyager sent back pictures of the nonexistent Cassini Division, there were some objects rolling along in a place that doesn't exist.
Wrong again, sonny. As late as the 1960's public schools taught morality via Christianity (maybe not in New York City, but New York City was always perverse). The 10 commandments and the golden rule were commonplace on the walls of public schools.
Where do you get this stuff? No public school had a Christian Morality class. They didn't teach Christianity - having golden rule plaque or saying 'under God' in the pledge isn't teaching religion.
When Christians controlled our public schools (and our nation's morality, in general) you could go on vacation without locking your house; for the life of your car without locking the doors; children had nothing to worry about, at school and at play, except for an occasional fistfight; you could count the number of loose girls in high school on your fingers; and lawyers were not getting filthy rich suing everyone who was trying to make society a better place (e.g., doctors, industrialists, public schools, you name it).
Right. Everything was perfect in the good old days. Everything would be perfect if you could just get those darned logical Christians to all be self-rightous, automatons and force people to believer the One True Christian Way for their own good!! The desire to return to a fantasy olden age dominated by religion is another facet that fundamentalists have in common.
Since your perversion took over
Oh yes, MY perversion and all the other Christian perversions of not mixing up faith with science - of not wanting to make everyone believe exactly the same thing. Such a ruinous thing.
Fine, then let schools teach intelligent design, or is that too much "freedom of thought" for you? If you are anything but a hypocrit you will be vehemently supporting the teaching of intelligent design.
Intelligent design is on par with spontaneous generation and is often included along with Lamarck's ideas in the beginning of evolution units. But if you want to teach ID as the replacement, or as God's creation then absolutely not - teach your religion in your church.
"Twenty six times, oh Daddy-boy? Not 25 or 27, but precisely 26? What were these 26 nations "that rebelled against God."
I thought you were some sort of history expert. I guess not.
And I thought you were making it up or quoting some propaganda line. I guess I was right.
Where did you get that idea. I think everyone should learn about the THEORY of evolution, intelligent design, and God's word.
Theory is often used as :
An entire body of knowledge associated with a particular area of study, including the basic postulates, predictions based on these postulates, observations and experimental data, and their interpretation. [Cal Poly Physics Colloquium, 9/23/99]
The Scientific American article quoted earlier even held that in discussion, theory and fact can be used interchangeably. There is no uncertainty implied in 'theory'.
Yet, you have called those who aren't against evolution, atheists and heretics, that evolution is a false science, junk science, has nothing to do with reality, perverse, unGodly, and promoted the suppression of evolution to foster the nation's moral and spiritual growth - saying that fools that support evolution are killing the nation.
But now you're changing to say it is ok to teach this evil idea but only if it is taught alongside a "True Christian" approved doctrine?
What I despise are arrogant bigots, such as evolutionists, who claim their way is the only way. When I run into such fools, I always confront them and challenge them.
In psychology, this is called transference - a transfer of one's own conscious and unconscious motivations to the opponent.
It has been the fundamentalist fringe in Arkansas, Kansas, and now Georgia, demanding that evolution be struck from the textbooks. When have you seen scientists demand a law that evolution be taught in all churches whenever Genesis is discussed?
Never. So who is the oppressor?
Nice point and score.
I had to pause when I noticed the phrasing "faiths OTHER than the Roman Catholic Church," not sect, not denomination but faiths. Interesting connotation.
Most denominations do not have a problem with it which comes down to the central issue of one sect trying to force its beliefs on the rest and using government force to do so.
So if they don't BELIEVE the exact same things in the exact same way you BELIEVE, then they're not Christians.
Not really, I wanted to see certain answers.
At least half a dozen FReepers fell in the recent Catholic wars. Apparantely for some the answer is no.
Not just Catholic, a huge portion of Protestants get hit by this charge.
There have even been whole threads devoted to denouncing all but the select few true believers
How "*********" of them. Sadly, I've seen it before.
It would not and you know it. A silly example that uses the counter examples of fallicies in the logic you were earlier promoting. Grue - you're deliberately ignoring important factors like a mechanism, agent, or system. Try a better one.
Just because some half-baked metaphysical theory happens to be common practice, doesn't mean it can reason its way out of paper bag.
Half-baked metaphysical theory? To what do you refer?
Different, in that Einstein's universe is a much closer description of reality than Newton's. But for nearly 300 years, the rough approximation of Newton's universe was sufficiently accurate that we were quite satisified; and it's still adequate for everyday purposes.
You correctly pointed out the state of most of 'Christianity' today.........
Similarly..
So if they don't ANALYZE the fossil record in the exact same way you DO, then they're not Evolutionists?
In my opinion, understanding the mechanism is not necessary for accepting an observation as fact.
I grew up in the good old days. I don't recall them being that different from the more recent days in which my kids attended school. Except that there are more stories being written in the press about the things we used to keep quiet about.
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.