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 ...
'You will be dissapointed to learn that the human genome (as well as the dozens of others sequenced so far) is not "ordered" at all.'
Well, it's just not ordered in the way _you_ feel it should be.
"It is a random jumble of dead retroviral and other parasitic DNA elements with a few genes mingled in, some of which actually work."
I hate to tell you this, but the junk DNA hypothesis has been pretty well refuted. Even retroviruses often play a function (think of a big biofeedback machine). Ever heard of a "back mutation"? That's a mutation where a bad mutation changes back to the original coding. Now, if back mutations were totally random like other mutations, do you think they would occur often enough to be named? Do you think perhaps that some of that "junk DNA" might function the same as parity bits or hamming codes do in computers -- to help mitigate the copying process from errors?
What's more, is that the number of protein coding genes found is much less than the number of actual proteins found, indicating that there is a much more complex process taking place than we realize.
"Evolutionary theory has tons of (scientifically gathered) data to back it up."
And tons of data to refute it. If you choose to ignore or whitewash the evidence, it's fairly easy to make evolutionary theory stand up.
Because your question makes no sense. As I said, state a premise and propose how it affects the issue and I will respond.
Moreover, you never answered how far back your instruments go in dating.
Instruments do NOT go back. But radioactive dating has projected back to 100,000 years.
Perhaps a study of general relativity would help you. Six days from one reference frame can be identical to 10-15 billion years from another.
Don't forget, he's often cited in the Jack Chick comic books as the source for some of the more outrageous claims. Chick and Hovind. A pair of con-men. It's tragic that they've misled so many people. But if gullible weren't gulled by them, it would have been someone else. That's the nature of gullibility.
This makes no sense at all. How can I answer a question if it makes no sense?
Yea, I know. I still like the quote.
No, the observations that I allude to make NO assumptions. For example, if the fine structure constant changes by more than 1% or so, then fusion reactions begin having problems and certain types of stars have problems burning, reactions that we can see occurring through spectral analysis of early-universe galaxies. Instrumentation is getting refined enough to handle observations of See this for example, or this.
Do you think scientists are just kidding when they say "Question everything"? In some cases, assumptions are made because no one has yet come up with a way to accurately test it. Until recently, we didn't have ways to test some of this stuff.
What makes you think I believe that?
The only point I was trying to make is that, for the purposes of evolution, it wouldn't matter if the universe was created by a juvenile delinquent alien.
You do realize that you are digging yourself a deep theological hole here, don't you?
Fair enough. I just noted the irony that you agreed with Voltaire that an invented god is better than no god at all.
But if you knew that this god was merely an invention wouldn't you behave differently?
And if you were aware that this god doesn't really exist why would you care whether others believed in this god or not?
Okay, if the half-life of 14C is 5730, and in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. And, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. So, how can radiocarbon dating be used for anything over about 50,000 years old? Wouldn't it make more sense that if there was any detectable 14C left in a sample, that it disproves it is millions of years old?
So, the question was, which I answered above, how far back can your instruments be used for dating? Answer 5,730 years. And this even makes an assumption that the rate of decay is a constant, and that C14 was not created already at its half-life.
Since I took care of that one for you, now answer these:
-Do you believe the age of the earth because of the geological column?
-Who designed that column?
-what about the layers in Grand Canyon, is that why you believe the Earth is billions of years old?
-Fossils?
I know, woe is me and the majority of this country who all believe the same thing.
I would expect a lot of people to behave differently if they really believed in God and Heaven, or at least, the part about burning in eternity.
So what, he doesn't believe in having a social security number or contribute to what he believes, and is being proven certain, to be a liberal, atheist based school system. If you know more than that, tell me.
That may be the case, radio, but majority does control, should we take a vote on it?
Remember, a vote of the masses can be tossed out if it is found unconstitutional. Welcome to the republic.
Carbon-14 is not usually used for dating earlier than 50k years ago. Other isotopes are used.
Wouldn't it make more sense that if there was any detectable 14C left in a sample, that it disproves it is millions of years old?
I suggest you do your homework. C-14 dating is not used to determine the age of things millions of years old.
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.