Ready, Aim...ZOT!
Posted on 08/07/2005 6:25:03 AM PDT by RepublicNewbie
In the "Monkey Trial," 80 years ago, the issue was: Did John Scopes violate Tennessee law forbidding the teaching of evolution? Indeed he had. Scopes was convicted and fined $100.
But because a cheerleader press favored Clarence Darrow, the agnostic who defended Scopes, Christian fundamentalism -- and the reputation of William Jennings Bryan, who was put on the stand and made to defend the literal truth of every Bible story from Jonah and the whale to the six days of creation -- took a pounding.
Don't forget that a good old bleedin' is a cure for what ails ya.
Being involved in the legal system, you no doubt have citations for this.
The two interesting legal theories I am toying with are that evolution, as understood and taught in schools today, is either a) a form of secular humanism, or b) paganism...
Which would make it ... um ... against Catholic teaching, would it not? Then what about this ?
Excerpt:
In his Encyclical Humani generis [1950], my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points (cf. AAS 42 [1950], pp. 575-576).[Bolding mine] Another excerpt:
Today, almost half a century after the publication of the Encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition in the theory of evolution of more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.
So if your theory is right, the (ex-) Pope endored another religion!
Enlighten me. If the blood clotting cascade was the result of evolution, rather than design, how many animals - including precursors to homo sapiens - died from cuts and wounds before a solution "evolved"?
No, and that is my point. Asking for a hypothesis, or scientific test to detect design is like asking for a hypothesis to detect the existence of planet Earth.
Depends on what you mean by "them."
By "them" I mean planet Earth and the universe. Nothing cryptic about it. If the earth and the universe were not designed, science would have no way of exploring it. Deal with it. Explain it away. Amuse the thinking man with your response. Besides, I'm sure you were there when it was all laid down and can explain the lack of an intelligent designer most intelligently yourself.
"Design" is a given under which science does take place. Science is "designed." It does not follow that life is "designed," or that the "design" of life should be assumed.
Why not? More people than scientists have figured as much, namely that where there is design, there is a designer. Not only so, but it has become increasingly apparent to many that life itself follows rules and patterns that are most easily attributed to design. Scientists who desire to push the notion that order and life can arise without the aid of an intelligent agent should pull their heads of the dark places where they are prone to looking and list themselves for hire in the philospohy and history segments of school cirricula.
It boggles the mind that evolutionists have the audacity to foist their philosophy upon science while demanding creationists supply hypotheses regarding the orderly nature of the world and the universe. If anything it is testimony to sheer laziness on the part of academia that evolutionism's ass wasn't kicked into the philosophy room a century ago or more. Somehow the NEA and its ilk must have gotten the better of us.
No, but I can read. Nothing in the text you link reestablishes the flagellum as IC. It's a bait-and-switch "Tah-dah!" Announcing that Y. pestis has flagellar genes it is not using does not make the flagellum IC again. Announcing a competing evolutionary scenario to the one Miller outlines may undercut Miller in some manner personally, but it does not suggest that there is no evolutionary scenario at all unless two somehow cancels to make zero.
Further, I have earned the credentials to know your position is that of a tiny cult and that modern science agrees with Miller. In fact, I've chased down enough creation/ID arguments myself on these threads in the last six years to know that if there's a bigger liar than a creationist, it's a creationist who won't admit what he is. And that's ID.
They're all bad pennies. Six years later I don't know one good argument for creation/ID. Irreducible complexity isn't it. Gold chains allegedly found in coal aren't it. Human and dinosaur footprints found together in Texas aren't it. The Second Law of Thermodynamics isn't it. There aren't any.
Seventeen.
Do you have any idea what evolution says about where blood clotting comes in versus where Homo sapiens comes in? I realize all you know is some story that says everything happened in one week, but really! If you don't know anything about evolution, how do you know it's wrong?
Ready, Aim...ZOT!
Of course, expecting as much out of someone who still believes 3000 year old creation myths is probably unreasonable.
A circle is not a sphere. How do you pitch a tent on a sphere? The imagery clearly shows the Israelites thought the earth was flat.
| The Myth of the Flat Earth Summary by Jeffrey Burton Russell for the American Scientific Affiliation Conference August 4, 1997 at Westmont College
|
click on the frame border for the document
Wow, another uneducated Creationist blowhard. Gee, how compelling.
The moronic twaddle you linked to is supposed to prove something? I've seen more intelligent writing in a men's room stall.
I would not say that my assumption that absolutely every time we don't see a designer we must assume one was present, is scientific. But possibility of design can be proven by observable science.
We can only assume that anything that functions with a purpose is designed for a purpose. Any technology, for example, is invented by a rational human mind with a purpose for that technology in mind.
However, things that function by accident still come about by some design, even though that design is unintentional. For example, someone drops his glass of coke on the rug and it puts a spot on the rug. The whole process has a certain design to it, though no direct purpose, so to speak.
Evolution is thought to be unintentional like the latter incident, where creation is thought to be intentional. Either's presumed effects can be validated by science or refuted by science. Both can be called sciences and both can be called faiths or theories.
But what makes intentional design more likely is the fact that things have functional value. One thing may function in a number of ways, but the design or pattern of that thing is suited for, geared toward, functionally more valuable to one function more than any other. For example, the coke bottle is suited more for handling and drinking more than spilling coke on a carpet. A funnel is more capable of funneling liquid downward than a coke bottle. A coke bottle generally faces up and holds liquid until its poured. The complexity of details of an object tell us what this object is designed to do. So yes, why not assume that a complex object is not designed? Unless, of course, you can prove that no purpose was involved with the final outcome of its pattern and function.
How do you pitch a tent on circle?
So one day there was no matter in the universe and then the next day there was?
Sorry you can point me to all of the static electricity THOERIES out there, I'm not buying it.
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.