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 ...
Your question indicates you know nothing about radioactive decay or radioactive dating. It would be impossible to discuss this issue with you as your scientific background is sorely lacking.
I asked a fairly simple question and your avoiding it means you don't have an appropriate answer (yet). I read a post where you tried to answer. Again, how do you know that radiocarbons were not created with already at half-life? Moreover, you never answered how far back your instruments go in dating.
If you would care to state a premise and show how it relates to the argument, I would gladly discuss the errors in your logic, however warped it might be.
From what I can read, there is no evidence on planet Earth (or off of it) that will ever open your mind to new possibilities. Sad.
Remember how we're commanded to "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s"? Kent's got a different take on the subject.
ROTFLMAO! :-)
Nope, this is a constitutional republic. Not mob rule.
There is nothing to explain because Lucy was not a fraud.
I hope you are aware that Voltaire was pretty much an unbeliever and that this rewarding and punishing god only "existed" for him as the Tooth Fairy, Superman or Bugs Bunny "exist" for you or me.
In other words, for him this god was just a virtual authority, a device to keep the ignorant and unsophisticated crowd from running amok.
Sometimes I really have to wonder why some theists use this not very flattering quote from Voltaire.
"he details of evolution are being addressed every single day in labs across the world and published in scientific journals frequently. The problem, if it can be called that, is that most of this passes either unknown to the broader public, or completely over our heads. Despite having a reasonably good scientific education, just skimming the abstracts is usually enough (and sometimes too much!) for me :)"
Of course many of the "details" are actually contrary to evolution, but those don't get reported mainstream, and tend to be tucked away without much comment. Like the fact that most biochemical research shows that the genetic makeup of different species do not show their evolutionary relationships as predicted.
Then there is the cambrian explosion. The fact that we started out with 100 phylums and are now down to about 50 with NO NEW ONES. Of course evolutionary theory should give us an gradual increase in diversity, not a restriction of diversity. The fossil record shows the sudden appearance of all the phylums in the same strata. Then they decrease from that.
Then, for all of the anatomical homologies often pointed to, most of them are actually developed in different ways, and coded for using completely different genes.
Then there's the fact that we have species today that exactly resemble the same speecies from millions of years ago. So, supposedly "change over time" didn't apply to them. Of course, that caused the concept of stasis to be applied to evolution. It wasn't really explanatory, it was just "oops, this doesn't work with our theory. here's a new term and we'll just pretend that certain species have simply decided to stop changing, while the rest of the species continue changing constantly".
Then there are the animals which are separated by both distance and supposed millions of years of time, who, again, haven't diverged.
When you examine the data, there really isn't much support for the microbes-to-man evolutionary theory. The fossil record and the biochemical record both contradict the theory.
Partly ignorance, and partly misinformation and superstition promulgated by certain religious sects, who worry that if they depart from Biblical literalism, people will start questioning other things.
That's circular reasoning if I've ever seen it. Note that I myself don't think that half-life rates change, but your notion of proof just isn't.
"Those observations show that the physical constants of the universe are not more that a few percent different than they are today."
No, those observations ASSUME that the physical constants of the universe are not more than a few percent different than they are today. Many scientists have said quite bluntly that gradualism and uniformitarianism are required ASSUMPTIONS in order to reasonably to historical scientific research. They are ASSUMPTIONS not conclusions.
"Again, realize that all of the dating mechanisms overlap and correlate."
Incorrect. They often differ by as much as tens or hundreds of millions of years. In those cases, the date which matches the scientists expectations (i.e. evolutionary theory) is chosen.
"Probability has no dog in this hunt, as it has all been removed by the correlative date samples."
Correlative date samples IMPOSE bias, they don't remove it.
Really? I spent a semester last year, with a class of freshman students, going through and comparing the genetic codes of various organisms, and in every case, for every organism, we found that the evolutionary relationships were exactly reflected in the genetic code.
To which specific organisms are you referring? Feel free to be as detailed as you want.
Cite a specific example, please.
Precisely what is "kind?" Please give a rigorous definition that will allow someone to look at two organisms and determine unambiguously whether they are of the same "kind" or not. Also, your "evolution" types 1-4 are necessary for ALL scientific theories. They are not identical to the theory of evolution. They are independent theories that stand or fall on their own. Even if God were conclusively demonstrated to be responsible directly for 1-4, that would not imply that the theory of evolution needs to be abandoned.
Not true. Past theories that were falsified, without alternatives, were dropped, not clung to. The idea that evolution is some shaky theory with mounting evidence against it, by the way, is absolutely absurd. The opposite is actually true.
How could allele frequencies in the gene pool of a population of organisms change if there are no organisms, no populations, no alleles and no gene pool?
With the Earth being 6000 years old
So you believe in the "G-d is just faking us all out with the observable evidence" thing?
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.