Posted on 04/10/2005 3:53:04 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
A pro-evolution group has organized what appears to be a successful boycott of Kansas hearings on intelligent design.
Alexa Posny, a deputy commissioner with the state department of education, told the Kansas City Star that only one person has agreed to testify on the pro-evolution side for the hearings scheduled for May.
"We have contacted scientists from all over the world," Posny said. "There isn't anywhere else we can go."
Harry McDonald, head of Kansas Citizens for Science, charged that the hearings, called by a conservative majority on the state board of education, have a pre-ordained outcome.He said that testifying would only make intelligent design appear legitimate.
"Intelligent design is not going to get its forum, at least not one in which they can say that scientists participated," he said.
Backers of intelligent design, the claim that a supreme being guided evolution, say it is a theory with scientific backing. Opponents believe it is an attempt to smuggle religion into public education.
"First of all, I'd appreciate it if you would quote the post you are responding to si I don't have to hunt it down."
Click the "to ###" link. No hunting required.
So you would accept flooding as a sign of the slowing of the earth's rotation? Given that the moon was set directly above Ajalon and the Sun above Gibeon...
What would the effects be on the opposite side of the planet, given that the opposite side is the middle of the Pacific Ocean and Hawaii (uninhabited at the time)?
What would these effects looks like considering the rotation of the planet? The waters would flow westward, with the inertia. What did east Asia look like at the time? Namely Japan. (I honestly don't know, if you have info, that would be great)
Would the Iberian Pennisula contain evidence of flooding/massive erosion? Like maybe silt in the Spanish Basin and a large portion of the mountain range "rounded" off?
Or were you more looking for a plateau in North Western Africa?
Obviously all I have here is speculation, but I do believe the evidence would not deny such an event.
Do you have any to refute the story? I don't have the ability to research such a thing, but I'm sure we can come to some sort of beginning of understanding exactly what happend that day.
Then why did you inject yourself into the discussion? The key term is definable to the Roman Catholic church. That was the purpose for my original question to Junior. You, however, are an anathema to the Roman Catholic church by the Canon that I cited. (If that bothers you in the slightest?) It should trouble a Roman Catholic.
"Your question is pretty much equivalent to asking whether a photon is a particle or a wave."
No, I believe his question would be equivalent to "Do photons exist?"
"beliefs. The only way that this would occur, and rightly so, is if they allowed their religious beliefs to override the evidence that they gather and therefore caused their beliefs to color their scientific findings. Scientists must put aside personal beliefs and focus exclusively on the evidence."
My argument is with those scientists who look at the religious mindset of Christian scientists ultimately weakening the work that they do. Just because you happen to be among a polite set of friends doesn't mean that on the whole, the scientific community looks upon religious folk with tolerance, particularly religious minded scientists. I will allow that the situation is probably more tolerant in America, but when you throw Europe and Asia into the mix, a scientist with a strong religious faith stands as an anachronism. A recent survey said that about 35 per cent of American scientists has a religious minded view, the rest agnostic or Atheistic.
Further more I'm more focused on the "science writer or social science activist types" who aren't actually very schooled in the sciences or were 2.5GPA types. These folk tend to be very leftist in their views and and tend to misapply concepts of evolutionary science in the attempt to remake society. Just look at Margaret Sanger, Hitler, Lenin, and practically all the socialist governments of the EU.(well the EU part is a little over board). These folks cited biology and evolution in their attempts to remake society.
Regular Christians aren't so concerned about Evolution per se but rather about the political misuse of these theories by men with darker purposes that the average regular scientist working in the biological fields would ever espouse!
I would think that God in his power to stop the earth's and Moon's rotation would have accounted for inertia.
Main Entry: re·pub·lic
Pronunciation: ri-'p&-blik
Function: noun
Etymology: French république, from Middle French republique, from Latin respublica, from res thing, wealth + publica, feminine of publicus public -- more at REAL, PUBLIC
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>
2 : a body of persons freely engaged in a specified activity <the republic of letters>
3 : a constituent political and territorial unit of the former nations of Czechoslovakia, the U.S.S.R., or Yugoslavia
In as much as the term "Republic" as it is applied to Rome came into play during the period in which the Senate exercised political power on behalf of the citizens who elected its members, a very notion of a "monarch" (other than a figure head) or Emperor during "Republican" times would be contradiction.
The answer is "yes" or "no" or "I don't understand the question". Not, "it depends on the meaning of 'is'"
So you don't know what you mean by 'free will'? But it's very important anyway?
The information required for life is the same information communicated by life. Even in evolution. For there to BE life, there must be communication AND change in the "message"
Thus change (adaptation, evolution, what-have-you) is part of Life. Evolution is part of change. At the same moment life came into being, the mechanics of evolution were set. the precise moment.
What you are saying is that a video game has it's own rules, but these rules do not involve the original scripting of the software. I can see where you would draw the line, however: the game still cannot play out in a way the designer (or hackers) did not intend.
By suggesting "rules of evolution" (the theory itself) one suggests parameters. The outside border is still a part of what it borders, even if it serves no purpose but to make the inside viable.
Think of it like a toaster if you want.
The machine is simply a spring loaded timer with a heating device. But the case is what holds it together, though it doesn't have any other "mechanical" function.
Thus (IMO) the origin of life is the origin of the changes in life, is the origin of evolution.
Again and again: Evolution is a mechanism.
Viable answer to me, but I'm arguing with a non-believer.
Ask Junior, that is essentially what I am doing.(IOW read the thread)
Good to know 'godidit' is an adequate explanation for you. One wonders why you seek any others.
To lengthen a day, one does not have to stop the earth's rotation. Suppose there was a very close pass made by another planet. Mars for example. What would happen to earth's rotation, precession, and orbit?
Why is it that people of the ancient past knew about Mars? They didn't have the benefit of telescopes. I can't pick out Mars with the naked eye, can you? Could Mars have made a close pass by earth at one time?
If I recall correctly, the Bible speaks of past large scale climatic disasters.
Regarding the flood story. Do you really think the Colorado river carved the Grand Canyon? or could it have been MASSIVE water flow draining into lower areas we now call oceans?
It'd be a problem if people tell me that "every electron in the world was created by Jehovah and therefore is a particle, and not a wave".
I'd rather hear any other perspectives on scientific issues from a researcher or a scientist, not from Jerry Falwell or Moonies.
What are Moonies? And I don't want to listen to Jerry Falwell about anything. What's your point?
Because I'm not a fool who blindly accepts everything.
I have read the thread. You're the one citing the Council of Trent. You evidently seem to know what the Council of Trent meant by 'free will' (me, I think they were simply finding a convenient way of anathematizing Calvinists). I'm asking you share your understanding with the group.
Junior said he was unclear on what is meant by it. I'm equally unsure; since you seem to possess a certainty both of us lack, please share.
Mars shifting would have had a cause. A meteor strike would suffice.
Oh wait... it WAS raining rocks that day, wasn't it?
Unless it merely involves a suspension of Newton's laws of motion?
You're kidding us, right? No one is truly this ignorant.
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.