Posted on 12/14/2004 7:14:55 AM PST by wkdaysoff
HARRISBURG, Pa. — The state American Civil Liberties Union (search) plans to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday against a Pennsylvania school district that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution (search).
The ACLU said its lawsuit will be the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power....
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What type of evolution happened? There are 6 different kinds and only one has been proven.
Indeed you are. Now stop avoiding the question. Will you admit your ignorant bias if I give you five examples? Make it worth my time. I'll educate you if you admit publically that your accusations against Christians are rooted in ignorance of the facts.
How can you test evolution?
Evolution does not address the origins of life. Your use of the word, "proof," is simply beyond the context of science. There are tons of data supporting the theory of evolution (I've must have posted this statement at least 3 times on this thread.)
Actually, it was the Christians who believed the world was round before the rest of the world. It was the "thinkers" who thought it ridiculous it was anything but flat. Do your history research first, okay?
Nice to see a Darwinist who knows the limits of his theories. Not all are so honest.
Okay, play it your way. I will certainly answer your question. I am all for the Genome Project. I believe - as a Creationist - that God designed order and structure into the creation, and that such things can be understood and exploited for good. Gene therepy to eliminate disease? All for it. Research to locate disease "markers" -- fabulous.
Such a mindset of discovering the order structure of the universe means that we can certainly expect to find answers to many questions of "why" and "how". And science IS the right way to do this! And there are a lot of religious people who get into "the scientific field" for precisley the reason that they want to help mankind in some way ... and then they run afoul of having to submit to evolutionary theory to even get into the field.
It is NOT that such structures are too complex to study and to know: it is precisely, however, that biological structures are too complex to evolve naturally from nothing given no direction and no aim -- or even the nebulous "better advantage over competitors" idea.
Is that why the Catholic Church recently apologized to Galileo?
Avast, mateys! Big Daddy ahoy! Chick Tract sighted off the starboard bow!
I suppose if you pointed out something like Gregor Mendel - the monk - as the Father of Genetics, you'd have that rejected as being a 'Scientist in religious clothing.'
oops - #130 was meant for you, Dataman.
You asked for data, I gave you one route to find them. Pursue my suggestion, then you, too, can become an AUTHORITY.
Oops, sorry about that, I was lumping the earth-centrist argument in with the Flat-earth argument.
I replied to you in post 101.
No, it does not. And repeating it a million times over does not make it so. As Darwin himself noted, the biggest hole in his theory was the fact that the fossil record should have contained a staggering number of INTER-SPECIES transitionals, yet it contained none. He was confident, however, that the lack was due simply to poor cataloging of the sparse fossil record at that time, and that the voluminous supply of inter-species transitional fossils would soon be found. 160 years later, the number of inter-species transitional fossils remains at zero.
After hundreds of millions of fossils have been cataloged, not ONE solitary inter-species transitional fossil has been found, conjuring claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Yes, lots of suppositions, lots of finding some tiny fragment of a fossil and then extrapolating the remainder of it from thin air in a manner to match their pre-existing notions and needs, but not one single, clear inter-species transitional fossil. With the state of fossil cataloging, there should be a staggering number of INDISPUTABLY CLEAR examples that show the transition from one species to another. They should be everywhere. But there's not ONE. It's kinda like a presidential candidate claiming he won even though not one single vote in any of the fifty states can be found that was cast for him. He points to a dozen or so dimpled-chad ballots and claims that as evidence that he should be inaugurated. Then there's Irreducible Complexity, another insurmountable obstacle to Darwinism. And on it goes.
The ACLU's lawsuit here, and the countless other examples of the squelching of debate, proves the flimsy weakness of Darwinism. If the evidence for evolution was strong, the theory and its disciples wouldn't be so terrified of debate. They shout down anyone who dares to offer another suggestion, because the theory is so pathetically weak that any debate will reveal the truth. Even to school children.
Evolutionists are welcome to respond, but I won't be responding to you. It has utterly nothing to do with a fear of debating you or being bested by you or anything of the sort. To the contrary, I feel sorry for you; you've bought into one of the biggest lies ever created. You've been totally duped. But, alas, you've shown a million times that any discussion is a futile effort. I don't need to see Patrick Henry's regurgitation of his cut-and-paste skull collection and other demagoguery. Sad that in this one area, a few conservatives adopt every deplorable tactic of the left, and just like you can't logically discuss an issue with a hardcore liberal, you can't logically discuss evolution with its dogmatic adherents.
Finally, to be clear: There is no contradiction whatsoever between the Bible and real science. None. God created the laws of physics and everything else, after all. If there were, and I reiterate that there is not, I would accept God's explanation if it were alone against the opinion of the whole of humanity. He was there.
BTW, fellow Christians who believe in evolution, you're discounting not only Genesis, but a lot of other passages as well. God the Creator is mentioned many many many times throughout the Bible. Creation is a core tenet of the faith, and once you go along with the lie that creation isn't real, you open up the entire Bible for dissection one tenet at a time. And when you study Genesis carefully, the words used in the original language, compared to the usage of those words elsewhere in the Bible, it becomes quite clear that Genesis is to be interpreted literally.
Personally, I think the truly fascinating discussion is the mechanism by which God created. Nanotechnology seems a distinct possibility.
MM
Peace to all - I must move on... an evolving day :D
Interesting. Do you have a reference?
Ping to #136.
MM
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.